https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-25/live-updates-roe-v-wade-decision-on-abortion-rights/101170038
It’s been overturned.
buffy said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-25/live-updates-roe-v-wade-decision-on-abortion-rights/101170038It’s been overturned.
Only in America?
And I see there was discussion last night in the USA thread. Still, I think it’s important enough to have its own thread.
buffy said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-25/live-updates-roe-v-wade-decision-on-abortion-rights/101170038It’s been overturned.
Insane. :(
Spiny Norman said:
buffy said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-25/live-updates-roe-v-wade-decision-on-abortion-rights/101170038It’s been overturned.
Insane. :(
They should rename the place the DSA Disunited States of A.
From the ABC piece on this:
I’m afraid one of my first thoughts about these young ones celebrating is…I wonder how many of them will “get into trouble” and find out the hard way about such things.
buffy said:
From the ABC piece on this:
I’m afraid one of my first thoughts about these young ones celebrating is…I wonder how many of them will “get into trouble” and find out the hard way about such things.
Most likely most of them.
However, they have God on their side keeping them uninformed.
The majority opinion was very much as leaked. Sad but anticipated. It’s a dark future for a lot of people.
In related news
Justice Clarence indicates the Supreme Courts future targets: same sex marriage anc contraception
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-00042256
dv said:
The majority opinion was very much as leaked. Sad but anticipated. It’s a dark future for a lot of people.
In related news
Justice Clarence indicates the Supreme Courts future targets: same sex marriage anc contraception
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-00042256
Whatever else Trump did may fade in significance to the lifetiime appointment of those three republicans to the supreme court.
roughbarked said:
dv said:The majority opinion was very much as leaked. Sad but anticipated. It’s a dark future for a lot of people.
In related news
Justice Clarence indicates the Supreme Courts future targets: same sex marriage anc contraception
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-00042256
Whatever else Trump did may fade in significance to the lifetiime appointment of those three republicans to the supreme court.
Worth remembering that Republican Senators basically went on strike for 11 months after Justice Scalia died in Feb 2016, refusing to even interview Obama’s SC picks. Just left the position vacant in the hopes of a victory in the Presidential race.
When Ginsburg died in September 2020, they had her replacement approved and sworn in within a month.
dv said:
roughbarked said:
dv said:The majority opinion was very much as leaked. Sad but anticipated. It’s a dark future for a lot of people.
In related news
Justice Clarence indicates the Supreme Courts future targets: same sex marriage anc contraception
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-00042256
Whatever else Trump did may fade in significance to the lifetiime appointment of those three republicans to the supreme court.
Worth remembering that Republican Senators basically went on strike for 11 months after Justice Scalia died in Feb 2016, refusing to even interview Obama’s SC picks. Just left the position vacant in the hopes of a victory in the Presidential race.
When Ginsburg died in September 2020, they had her replacement approved and sworn in within a month.
True.
I’m no legal scholar but various commentators are saying that the breadth of the ruling means it will be very difficult for a later court to change.
The only remedy might be a constitutional amendment, which would require supermajorities in both the House and Senate, unlikely in the foreseeable future.
roughbarked said:
dv said:
roughbarked said:
Whatever else Trump did may fade in significance to the lifetiime appointment of those three republicans to the supreme court.
Worth remembering that Republican Senators basically went on strike for 11 months after Justice Scalia died in Feb 2016, refusing to even interview Obama’s SC picks. Just left the position vacant in the hopes of a victory in the Presidential race.
When Ginsburg died in September 2020, they had her replacement approved and sworn in within a month.
True.
you get what you vote for
SCIENCE said:
roughbarked said:dv said:
Worth remembering that Republican Senators basically went on strike for 11 months after Justice Scalia died in Feb 2016, refusing to even interview Obama’s SC picks. Just left the position vacant in the hopes of a victory in the Presidential race.
When Ginsburg died in September 2020, they had her replacement approved and sworn in within a month.
True.
you get what you vote for
Let us hope that by voting for Joe, that he overrules this if at all possible.
SCIENCE said:
roughbarked said:dv said:
Worth remembering that Republican Senators basically went on strike for 11 months after Justice Scalia died in Feb 2016, refusing to even interview Obama’s SC picks. Just left the position vacant in the hopes of a victory in the Presidential race.
When Ginsburg died in September 2020, they had her replacement approved and sworn in within a month.
True.
you get what you vote for
well all right but it’s the court, it’s law and order, it’s freedom and liberty
All the justices on the Supreme Court are appointed for life and can only be removed if they are impeached, which is a high bar to jump.
It’s hard to get rid of them, but it’s easier to make more of them. Some people are calling for President Joe Biden to “expand the bench”.
Interestingly, Oklahoma, Arkansas, South Dakota have more restrictive abortion laws than Saudi Arabia or Iran in that they do not allow maternal health as a valid reason for abortion. Someone in Tulsa whose health might be threatened by childbirth could fly to Riyadh or Tehran to get an abortion.
dv said:
Interestingly, Oklahoma, Arkansas, South Dakota have more restrictive abortion laws than Saudi Arabia or Iran in that they do not allow maternal health as a valid reason for abortion. Someone in Tulsa whose health might be threatened by childbirth could fly to Riyadh or Tehran to get an abortion.
If they didn’t tell anyone the reason for going there?
roughbarked said:
dv said:
Interestingly, Oklahoma, Arkansas, South Dakota have more restrictive abortion laws than Saudi Arabia or Iran in that they do not allow maternal health as a valid reason for abortion. Someone in Tulsa whose health might be threatened by childbirth could fly to Riyadh or Tehran to get an abortion.
If they didn’t tell anyone the reason for going there?
That’s a fair point. In Oklahoma it would also be illegal for them to travel elsewhere to get an abortion.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/collins-manchin-misled-kavanaugh-gorsuch-abortion-rights-rcna35230
For pity’s sake.
Another thing occurs to me. With our latest election there was a women’s movement in the voting patterns. I wonder if this Roe v Wade thing might motivate a lot of women to actually get out and vote in the upcoming US elections. Apparently there is quite widespread opinion that abortion should be available.
buffy said:
Another thing occurs to me. With our latest election there was a women’s movement in the voting patterns. I wonder if this Roe v Wade thing might motivate a lot of women to actually get out and vote in the upcoming US elections. Apparently there is quite widespread opinion that abortion should be available.
There is a real chance that this could indeed bring more women out. Though I do experience despair when I hear some of the comments made by the anti-abortionist females.
eg: there are some women who say the baby has more right to life than the mother.
I’m sure these women have never been pregnant but who knows?
Women in sport are already speaking out.
“If not for men, we would have none of these laws. We would have none of the inequality in terms of gender rights and this onslaught on abortion rights. None of this would be happening.“We did not do this to ourselves. And I would take it personally, what I’m saying, as an accusation; as a come-to-Jesus moment.
“Look in the mirror. You are complicit in all of this.”
roughbarked said:
Women in sport are already speaking out.“If not for men, we would have none of these laws. We would have none of the inequality in terms of gender rights and this onslaught on abortion rights. None of this would be happening.“We did not do this to ourselves. And I would take it personally, what I’m saying, as an accusation; as a come-to-Jesus moment.
“Look in the mirror. You are complicit in all of this.”
OK, but a “come-to-Jesus moment”?
Seriously?
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
Women in sport are already speaking out.“If not for men, we would have none of these laws. We would have none of the inequality in terms of gender rights and this onslaught on abortion rights. None of this would be happening.“We did not do this to ourselves. And I would take it personally, what I’m saying, as an accusation; as a come-to-Jesus moment.
“Look in the mirror. You are complicit in all of this.”
OK, but a “come-to-Jesus moment”?
Seriously?
Well, she is an American and is talking to male white American Christians.
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
Women in sport are already speaking out.“If not for men, we would have none of these laws. We would have none of the inequality in terms of gender rights and this onslaught on abortion rights. None of this would be happening.“We did not do this to ourselves. And I would take it personally, what I’m saying, as an accusation; as a come-to-Jesus moment.
“Look in the mirror. You are complicit in all of this.”
OK, but a “come-to-Jesus moment”?
Seriously?
Well, she is an American and is talking to male white American Christians.
I doubt that skin colour has much to do with this particular issue.’
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-25/roe-v-wade-decision-supreme-court/101167158
>>At present, roughly a quarter of American women are estimated to have an abortion by the time they are 45, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit supporting abortion rights.
At least 75 per cent of those women are on low incomes, while 59 per cent already have at least one child.
“Marginalised communities, poor communities, people of colour, black women especially, are going to die because of this decision,” said a 24-year-old abortion clinic escort from North Carolina, who asked to be known as Julie.
“Not anyone is affected by that is sitting in that room,” she said, nodding towards the court steps.
“And they don’t know anyone who’s going to be affected by this decision today.
“But I do. We don’t want this.”<<
The last four sentences are particularly pertinent.
The Rev Dodgson said:
OK. Discount skin colour then. ;)
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:OK, but a “come-to-Jesus moment”?
Seriously?
Well, she is an American and is talking to male white American Christians.
I doubt that skin colour has much to do with this particular issue.’
The attorney-general in Oklahoma, which currently has a near-complete ban on abortion, has described the Supreme Court’s ruling as a “victory for unborn children”.
dv said:
For pity’s sake.
Laugh Out Loud
because believing what a law graduate “implied” without anything “expressed” is totally a wise move
theocracy is best
actually you know what, what the fuck are we on about, this is fucking good news actually
it’s obvious, 9 months from now the DPRNA will experience a glorious burst of economic growth the likes of which have not been seen in living history
SCIENCE said:
That
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-25/roe-v-wade-norma-mccorvey-behind-the-legal-battle-joshua-prager/101167762
Mr buffy suggested the women of America might need to hold a sex strike – with-holding of availability. I suggest a simple condom requirement – the old slogan of “if it’s not on, it’s not on”. I am led to believe many men don’t like using a condom.
buffy said:
Mr buffy suggested the women of America might need to hold a sex strike – with-holding of availability. I suggest a simple condom requirement – the old slogan of “if it’s not on, it’s not on”. I am led to believe many men don’t like using a condom.
Many men like to tell themselves they don’t like wearing a condom.
roughbarked said:
buffy said:
Mr buffy suggested the women of America might need to hold a sex strike – with-holding of availability. I suggest a simple condom requirement – the old slogan of “if it’s not on, it’s not on”. I am led to believe many men don’t like using a condom.
Many men like to tell themselves they don’t like wearing a condom.
herpes is good
Not Satire 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/calm-down-well-be-fine-no-matter-who-wins/2016/11/04/e5ca3c32-a2d3-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html
——-
Satire 2022
https://twitter.com/MichelleObama/status/1540345715616006148
If it were up to me I would be throwing American lobbyists out of Canberra.
SCIENCE said:
because believing what a law graduate “implied” without anything “expressed” is totally a wise move
they need to just vote with their feet and de-populate those states
sarahs mum said:
If it were up to me I would be throwing American lobbyists out of Canberra.
Considering the number of right-wing Australian lobbyists I don’t think American ones are much of an issue.
sarahs mum said:
If it were up to me I would be throwing American lobbyists out of Canberra.
Do we even have many?
SCIENCE said:
roughbarked said:
buffy said:
Mr buffy suggested the women of America might need to hold a sex strike – with-holding of availability. I suggest a simple condom requirement – the old slogan of “if it’s not on, it’s not on”. I am led to believe many men don’t like using a condom.
Many men like to tell themselves they don’t like wearing a condom.
herpes is good
Also.
The liberal justices agree those rights are at risk. “The right Roe and Casey recognised does not stand alone,” they wrote. “To the contrary, the court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation. Most obviously, the right to terminate a pregnancy arose straight out of the right to purchase and use contraception. In turn, those rights led, more recently, to rights of same-sex intimacy and marriage.”
The court has effectively found that its predecessors incorrectly decided there were rights that Americans were entitled to which weren’t explicitly laid out in the constitution. Instead they stem from an implied right to privacy and the right to due process. Effectively, Americans have a right to a private life and that shouldn’t be interfered with, without good reason. Now that the court has found abortion isn’t a right, why would people have a right to birth control? Or to marry someone of a different race? Or the same sex?
Witty Rejoinder said:
party_pants said:
sarahs mum said:
If it were up to me I would be throwing American lobbyists out of Canberra.
Do we even have many?
Considering the number of right-wing Australian lobbyists I don’t think American ones are much of an issue.
do Australians championing DPRNA values and agendas count
SCIENCE said:
Witty Rejoinder said:party_pants said:
Do we even have many?
Considering the number of right-wing Australian lobbyists I don’t think American ones are much of an issue.
do Australians championing DPRNA values and agendas count
DPRNA ??
party_pants said:
SCIENCE said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Considering the number of right-wing Australian lobbyists I don’t think American ones are much of an issue.
do Australians championing DPRNA values and agendas count
DPRNA ??
democratic people’s republic north america
Perfect chance for a nearby Caribbean country to set up as an abortion tourism hot-spot.
party_pants said:
Perfect chance for a nearby Caribbean country to set up as an abortion tourism hot-spot.
There will be plenty of States within the USA still providing abortions.
sibeen said:
party_pants said:
Perfect chance for a nearby Caribbean country to set up as an abortion tourism hot-spot.
There will be plenty of States within the USA still providing abortions.
about half, roughly.
sibeen said:
party_pants said:
Perfect chance for a nearby Caribbean country to set up as an abortion tourism hot-spot.
There will be plenty of States within the USA still providing abortions.
Wouldn’t you rather a Caribbean holiday?
sibeen said:
party_pants said:
Perfect chance for a nearby Caribbean country to set up as an abortion tourism hot-spot.
There will be plenty of States within the USA still providing abortions.
or go to the link and interactively use it.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-25/roe-v-wade-where-is-abortion-still-legal-in-the-us-/101183262
party_pants said:
sibeen said:
party_pants said:
Perfect chance for a nearby Caribbean country to set up as an abortion tourism hot-spot.
There will be plenty of States within the USA still providing abortions.
Wouldn’t you rather a Caribbean holiday?
Have you watched border security?
party_pants said:
sibeen said:
party_pants said:
Perfect chance for a nearby Caribbean country to set up as an abortion tourism hot-spot.
There will be plenty of States within the USA still providing abortions.
Wouldn’t you rather a Caribbean holiday?
Most people trying to get an abortion are normally on the lower end of the economic spectrum. Getting a passport and travelling overseas is probably not high on the agenda.
dv said:
SCIENCE said:
roughbarked said:True.
you get what you vote for
Presumably she did have an opinion on abortion. However nobody has added that to her Wiki.
party_pants said:
Perfect chance for a nearby Caribbean country to set up as an abortion tourism hot-spot.
Nah, online black market in the abortion pills mentioned in the article roughbarked linked.
buffy said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-25/live-updates-roe-v-wade-decision-on-abortion-rights/101170038It’s been overturned.
Those judges that voted against human rights are human rights abusers and not fit for their roles any more.
Judges voting against human rights shows that their ethics are very screwed up, screwed up by religion, by media, by their own environment and by their own very flawed thinking.
The people who follow abortion presents no problem to them, so why force it onto others who they don’t know and who do not share and/ or want those views.
That is dictating what others should do. Don’t they realize that?
Tau.Neutrino said:
buffy said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-25/live-updates-roe-v-wade-decision-on-abortion-rights/101170038It’s been overturned.
Those judges that voted against human rights are human rights abusers and not fit for their roles any more.
Judges voting against human rights shows that their ethics are very screwed up, screwed up by religion, by media, by their own environment and by their own very flawed thinking.
The people who follow abortion presents no problem to them, so why force it onto others who they don’t know and who do not share and/ or want those views.
That is dictating what others should do. Don’t they realize that?
It’s to take peoples mind off this: A bipartisan package of modest gun safety measures passed the US Senate late on Thursday, even as the country’s Supreme Court broadly expanded gun rights by ruling Americans have a constitutional right to carry handguns in public for self-defence.
Tamb said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
buffy said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-25/live-updates-roe-v-wade-decision-on-abortion-rights/101170038It’s been overturned.
Those judges that voted against human rights are human rights abusers and not fit for their roles any more.
Judges voting against human rights shows that their ethics are very screwed up, screwed up by religion, by media, by their own environment and by their own very flawed thinking.
The people who follow abortion presents no problem to them, so why force it onto others who they don’t know and who do not share and/ or want those views.
That is dictating what others should do. Don’t they realize that?
It’s ^time to take peoples mind off this: A bipartisan package of modest gun safety measures passed the US Senate late on Thursday, even as the country’s Supreme Court broadly expanded gun rights by ruling Americans have a constitutional right to carry handguns in public for self-defence.
fixed.
Pathetic, judges who are religious, their thinking is affected by religion, which means their observation is affected by religion, which then means their thinking as judges is impaired.
Ethics, logic, state and justice should be free from religious interference which corrupts thinking and then goes on to corrupt outcomes usually in the form of human rights abuse.
That is what we are seeing here.
America boasts about freedom .
Then their Supreme Court creates a contradictory law:
America takes away: peoples freedom.
Religion affects observations, it creates hypocrisy and contradictions and corrupts justice, those judges are pathetic.
roughbarked said:
dv said:
SCIENCE said:you get what you vote for
Presumably she did have an opinion on abortion. However nobody has added that to her Wiki.
Susan Collins also has an opinion on it but it doesn’t count more than the fact that she voted to cram the SC with antiabortion activist justices.
buffy said:
Mr buffy suggested the women of America might need to hold a sex strike – with-holding of availability. I suggest a simple condom requirement – the old slogan of “if it’s not on, it’s not on”. I am led to believe many men don’t like using a condom.
Lysistrata
Arts said:
buffy said:
Mr buffy suggested the women of America might need to hold a sex strike – with-holding of availability. I suggest a simple condom requirement – the old slogan of “if it’s not on, it’s not on”. I am led to believe many men don’t like using a condom.
Lysistrata
LOLOL
Arts said:
buffy said:
Mr buffy suggested the women of America might need to hold a sex strike – with-holding of availability. I suggest a simple condom requirement – the old slogan of “if it’s not on, it’s not on”. I am led to believe many men don’t like using a condom.
Lysistrata
Kvennafrídagurinn
Arts said:
buffy said:
Mr buffy suggested the women of America might need to hold a sex strike – with-holding of availability. I suggest a simple condom requirement – the old slogan of “if it’s not on, it’s not on”. I am led to believe many men don’t like using a condom.
Lysistrata
oh, who are the DPRNA warring against
ChrispenEvan said:
Arts said:
buffy said:
Mr buffy suggested the women of America might need to hold a sex strike – with-holding of availability. I suggest a simple condom requirement – the old slogan of “if it’s not on, it’s not on”. I am led to believe many men don’t like using a condom.
Lysistrata
Kvennafrídagurinn
so do we reckon only 10% of DPRNA women are tradwives these days
SCIENCE said:
Arts said:
buffy said:
Mr buffy suggested the women of America might need to hold a sex strike – with-holding of availability. I suggest a simple condom requirement – the old slogan of “if it’s not on, it’s not on”. I am led to believe many men don’t like using a condom.
Lysistrata
oh, who are the DPRNA warring against
it is more normal to use the prefix PDR- “People’s Democratic Republic of…”
Michael V said:
Arts said:
buffy said:
Mr buffy suggested the women of America might need to hold a sex strike – with-holding of availability. I suggest a simple condom requirement – the old slogan of “if it’s not on, it’s not on”. I am led to believe many men don’t like using a condom.
Lysistrata
LOLOL
I knew it was something classical.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Pathetic, judges who are religious, their thinking is affected by religion, which means their observation is affected by religion, which then means their thinking as judges is impaired.Ethics, logic, state and justice should be free from religious interference which corrupts thinking and then goes on to corrupt outcomes usually in the form of human rights abuse.
That is what we are seeing here.
America boasts about freedom .
Then their Supreme Court creates a contradictory law:
America takes away: peoples freedom.
Religion affects observations, it creates hypocrisy and contradictions and corrupts justice, those judges are pathetic.
funny that’s the kind of objection many of them have against the IRI and yet
SCIENCE said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Pathetic, judges who are religious, their thinking is affected by religion, which means their observation is affected by religion, which then means their thinking as judges is impaired.Ethics, logic, state and justice should be free from religious interference which corrupts thinking and then goes on to corrupt outcomes usually in the form of human rights abuse.
That is what we are seeing here.
America boasts about freedom .
Then their Supreme Court creates a contradictory law:
America takes away: peoples freedom.
Religion affects observations, it creates hypocrisy and contradictions and corrupts justice, those judges are pathetic.
funny that’s the kind of objection many of them have against the IRI and yet
What about the KCM?
ChrispenEvan said:
Arts said:
buffy said:
Mr buffy suggested the women of America might need to hold a sex strike – with-holding of availability. I suggest a simple condom requirement – the old slogan of “if it’s not on, it’s not on”. I am led to believe many men don’t like using a condom.
Lysistrata
Kvennafrídagurinn
:)
I intensely dislike unexplained initialisations.
Peak Warming Man said:
SCIENCE said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Pathetic, judges who are religious, their thinking is affected by religion, which means their observation is affected by religion, which then means their thinking as judges is impaired.Ethics, logic, state and justice should be free from religious interference which corrupts thinking and then goes on to corrupt outcomes usually in the form of human rights abuse.
That is what we are seeing here.
America boasts about freedom .
Then their Supreme Court creates a contradictory law:
America takes away: peoples freedom.
Religion affects observations, it creates hypocrisy and contradictions and corrupts justice, those judges are pathetic.
funny that’s the kind of objection many of them have against the IRI and yet
What about the KCM?
are they like the mujtahids for North America or something
party_pants said:
SCIENCE said:
Arts said:Lysistrata
oh, who are the DPRNA warring against
it is more normal to use the prefix PDR- “People’s Democratic Republic of…”
Hmmmmm we’ll need to make a list but the phrase structure differs for Ethiopia, Korea, Laos, …
Michael V said:
I intensely dislike unexplained initialisations.
itiftysaytaiam2
Michael V said:
I intensely dislike unexplained initialisations.
IIDUI
sibeen said:
Michael V said:
I intensely dislike unexplained initialisations.
IIDUI
tliadtj
SCIENCE said:
Peak Warming Man said:
SCIENCE said:funny that’s the kind of objection many of them have against the IRI and yet
What about the KCM?
are they like the mujtahids for North America or something
FIIK
ChrispenEvan said:
sibeen said:
Michael V said:
I intensely dislike unexplained initialisations.
IIDUI
tliadtj
ofcs
Mama Doctor Jones
1.18M subscribers
Doctor Discusses Abortion & Roe Vs. Wade Overturn- 29 second opinion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfMdYmQwv2k
ChrispenEvan said:
well it’s true the arsehole did do something
note also that the objective fact is that as Triumph des Willens demonstrates great leaders do exist despite all the flawed ideologies they may represent
SCIENCE said:
ChrispenEvan said:
well it’s true the arsehole did do something
note also that the objective fact is that as Triumph des Willens demonstrates great leaders do exist despite all the flawed ideologies they may represent
Michael V said:
I intensely dislike unexplained initialisations.
Surely you mean: IIDUI
The Rev Dodgson said:
Michael V said:
I intensely dislike unexplained initialisations.
Surely you mean: IIDUI
cough
sibeen said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Michael V said:
I intensely dislike unexplained initialisations.
Surely you mean: IIDUI
cough
SCIENCE said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
party_pants said:
Do we even have many?
Considering the number of right-wing Australian lobbyists I don’t think American ones are much of an issue.
do Australians championing DPRNA values and agendas count
SCIENCE said:
Fair.
Why the Left is sadly unfit to fight this battle:
Bubblecar said:
Why the Left is sadly unfit to fight this battle:
AOC is not representative of the mainstream left in the US.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Bubblecar said:
Why the Left is sadly unfit to fight this battle:
AOC is not representative of the mainstream left in the US.
You think there’s a mainstream Left in the USA that isn’t captured by transgender bollocks?
Truth be told, if neither the patriarchal Left nor patriarchal Right see this as a women’s issue, it’s going to take a re-activated feminist centre to do anything about it.
Bubblecar said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Bubblecar said:
Why the Left is sadly unfit to fight this battle:
AOC is not representative of the mainstream left in the US.
You think there’s a mainstream Left in the USA that isn’t captured by transgender bollocks?
Truth be told, if neither the patriarchal Left nor patriarchal Right see this as a women’s issue, it’s going to take a re-activated feminist centre to do anything about it.
can we not pollute every thread with this topic?
ChrispenEvan said:
Bubblecar said:
Witty Rejoinder said:AOC is not representative of the mainstream left in the US.
You think there’s a mainstream Left in the USA that isn’t captured by transgender bollocks?
Truth be told, if neither the patriarchal Left nor patriarchal Right see this as a women’s issue, it’s going to take a re-activated feminist centre to do anything about it.
can we not pollute every thread with this topic?
Can you not fuck off and stop trying to censure discussion that takes you out of your infantile comfort zone?
The fact that the US Left is widely responding to this fundamental women’s issue with transgender bollocks ensures that transgender bollocks is sadly, very relevant.
ChrispenEvan said:
Bubblecar said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
AOC is not representative of the mainstream left in the US.
You think there’s a mainstream Left in the USA that isn’t captured by transgender bollocks?
Truth be told, if neither the patriarchal Left nor patriarchal Right see this as a women’s issue, it’s going to take a re-activated feminist centre to do anything about it.
can we not pollute every thread with this topic?
what, menstruation
that’s a bit sexgenderwhateverthefuckidentitist
SCIENCE said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Bubblecar said:
You think there’s a mainstream Left in the USA that isn’t captured by transgender bollocks?
Truth be told, if neither the patriarchal Left nor patriarchal Right see this as a women’s issue, it’s going to take a re-activated feminist centre to do anything about it.
can we not pollute every thread with this topic?
what, menstruation
that’s a bit sexgenderwhateverthefuckidentitist
it was good enough for my ancestors…
Bubblecar said:
The fact that the US Left is widely responding to this fundamental women’s issue with transgender bollocks ensures that transgender bollocks is sadly, very relevant.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Bubblecar said:
The fact that the US Left is widely responding to this fundamental women’s issue with transgender bollocks ensures that transgender bollocks is sadly, very relevant.
There is no one US left.
Obviously there are US Left people who reject the trans ideology, but they are the underdogs, not the mainstream.
And c’rect me if’n I’m wrong, but you was talkin’ mainstream.
Bubblecar said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Bubblecar said:
The fact that the US Left is widely responding to this fundamental women’s issue with transgender bollocks ensures that transgender bollocks is sadly, very relevant.
There is no one US left.
Obviously there are US Left people who reject the trans ideology, but they are the underdogs, not the mainstream.
And c’rect me if’n I’m wrong, but you was talkin’ mainstream.
I don’t see Biden or Pelosi couching their opposition to the end of RvW in transgender ideology.
Betoota Advocate:
‘Country That Lets Lunatics Shoot Up Schools Moves To Protect Kids By Banning A Medical Procedure’
captain_spalding said:
Betoota Advocate:‘Country That Lets Lunatics Shoot Up Schools Moves To Protect Kids By Banning A Medical Procedure’
It’s not wrong
Cymek said:
captain_spalding said:
Betoota Advocate:‘Country That Lets Lunatics Shoot Up Schools Moves To Protect Kids By Banning A Medical Procedure’
It’s not wrong
I suppose with banning it no women will need an abortion so its an easy solution
Cymek said:
Cymek said:
captain_spalding said:
Betoota Advocate:‘Country That Lets Lunatics Shoot Up Schools Moves To Protect Kids By Banning A Medical Procedure’
It’s not wrong
I suppose with banning it no women will need an abortion so its an easy solution
more cannon fodder required
SCIENCE said:
Cymek said:
Cymek said:It’s not wrong
I suppose with banning it no women will need an abortion so its an easy solution
more cannon fodder required
Bubblecar said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Bubblecar said:
The fact that the US Left is widely responding to this fundamental women’s issue with transgender bollocks ensures that transgender bollocks is sadly, very relevant.
There is no one US left.
Obviously there are US Left people who reject the trans ideology, but they are the underdogs, not the mainstream.
And c’rect me if’n I’m wrong, but you was talkin’ mainstream.
Can you explain to me how a woman saying that this decision has adverse effects on just about everybody is a bad thing?
I think it’s pretty clear that in their opinions, the conservative justices laid out a roadmap (in fact a number of different roadmaps) for the boarder conservative movement to follow in attacking other “rights to privacy”. The telling factor from here, I’d imagine, is seeing which cases they decide to take in the subsequent terms.
The amount of litigation that is associated with the contesting of laws in the US is simply astounding…
diddly-squat said:
I think it’s pretty clear that in their opinions, the conservative justices laid out a roadmap (in fact a number of different roadmaps) for the boarder conservative movement to follow in attacking other “rights to privacy”. The telling factor from here, I’d imagine, is seeing which cases they decide to take in the subsequent terms.The amount of litigation that is associated with the contesting of laws in the US is simply astounding…
Ugh conservatives the last thing we need
Bubblecar said:
The fact that the US Left is widely responding to this fundamental women’s issue with transgender bollocks ensures that transgender bollocks is sadly, very relevant.
abortion is not a “fundamentally woman’s issue” it’s an issue that affects everyone.
dv said:
yeah.. I’m gonna need some more context here
diddly-squat said:
dv said:
yeah.. I’m gonna need some more context here
https://www.6newsau.com/post/liberal-mp-tim-smith-appears-to-threaten-6-news-leo-puglisi-with-legal-action-for-tweet
diddly-squat said:
dv said:
yeah.. I’m gonna need some more context here
LP retweeted a post by TS, without providing any comment or angle, basically just posting what seemed a kind of normal and non-inflammatory view on a comparison between the US and Australian justice systems. TS tweeted a response that appears to threaten LP with legal action, which seems an odd response to someone sharing his own post.
https://twitter.com/Leo_Puglisi6/status/1540676438722244609
dv said:
diddly-squat said:
dv said:
yeah.. I’m gonna need some more context here
LP retweeted a post by TS, without providing any comment or angle, basically just posting what seemed a kind of normal and non-inflammatory view on a comparison between the US and Australian justice systems. TS tweeted a response that appears to threaten LP with legal action, which seems an odd response to someone sharing his own post.
https://twitter.com/Leo_Puglisi6/status/1540676438722244609
Chitter is such a great method to explain complicated things as well
dv said:
diddly-squat said:
dv said:
yeah.. I’m gonna need some more context here
LP retweeted a post by TS, without providing any comment or angle, basically just posting what seemed a kind of normal and non-inflammatory view on a comparison between the US and Australian justice systems. TS tweeted a response that appears to threaten LP with legal action, which seems an odd response to someone sharing his own post.
https://twitter.com/Leo_Puglisi6/status/1540676438722244609
Any idea what “trying to verbal me” means?
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
diddly-squat said:yeah.. I’m gonna need some more context here
LP retweeted a post by TS, without providing any comment or angle, basically just posting what seemed a kind of normal and non-inflammatory view on a comparison between the US and Australian justice systems. TS tweeted a response that appears to threaten LP with legal action, which seems an odd response to someone sharing his own post.
https://twitter.com/Leo_Puglisi6/status/1540676438722244609
Any idea what “trying to verbal me” means?
verbal I believe was a thing cops did to suspects by writing a confession for them rather than writing what was said.
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
diddly-squat said:yeah.. I’m gonna need some more context here
LP retweeted a post by TS, without providing any comment or angle, basically just posting what seemed a kind of normal and non-inflammatory view on a comparison between the US and Australian justice systems. TS tweeted a response that appears to threaten LP with legal action, which seems an odd response to someone sharing his own post.
https://twitter.com/Leo_Puglisi6/status/1540676438722244609
Any idea what “trying to verbal me” means?
Normally, to verbal someone is to fabricate a spoken confession. It was popular in Qld back in the day.
Its use by Smith here is odd, given that Twitter is not a spoken medium and no fabrication has taken place.
ChrispenEvan said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:LP retweeted a post by TS, without providing any comment or angle, basically just posting what seemed a kind of normal and non-inflammatory view on a comparison between the US and Australian justice systems. TS tweeted a response that appears to threaten LP with legal action, which seems an odd response to someone sharing his own post.
https://twitter.com/Leo_Puglisi6/status/1540676438722244609
Any idea what “trying to verbal me” means?
verbal I believe was a thing cops did to suspects by writing a confession for them rather than writing what was said.
Noun
verballing (uncountable)
The putting of damaging remarks into the mouths of suspects during police interrogation
wiki.
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:LP retweeted a post by TS, without providing any comment or angle, basically just posting what seemed a kind of normal and non-inflammatory view on a comparison between the US and Australian justice systems. TS tweeted a response that appears to threaten LP with legal action, which seems an odd response to someone sharing his own post.
https://twitter.com/Leo_Puglisi6/status/1540676438722244609
Any idea what “trying to verbal me” means?
Normally, to verbal someone is to fabricate a spoken confession. It was popular in Qld back in the day.
Its use by Smith here is odd, given that Twitter is not a spoken medium and no fabrication has taken place.
OK
So is it possible the tweet he is complaining about is not something he actually tweeted?
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Any idea what “trying to verbal me” means?
Normally, to verbal someone is to fabricate a spoken confession. It was popular in Qld back in the day.
Its use by Smith here is odd, given that Twitter is not a spoken medium and no fabrication has taken place.
OK
So is it possible the tweet he is complaining about is not something he actually tweeted?
it is a direct quote, whether tweeted or written elsewhere makes little difference.
ChrispenEvan said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:Normally, to verbal someone is to fabricate a spoken confession. It was popular in Qld back in the day.
Its use by Smith here is odd, given that Twitter is not a spoken medium and no fabrication has taken place.
OK
So is it possible the tweet he is complaining about is not something he actually tweeted?it is a direct quote, whether tweeted or written elsewhere makes little difference.
How do we know it is a direct quote though?
The Rev Dodgson said:
ChrispenEvan said:
The Rev Dodgson said:OK
So is it possible the tweet he is complaining about is not something he actually tweeted?it is a direct quote, whether tweeted or written elsewhere makes little difference.
How do we know it is a direct quote though?
I guess you could do a search…
ChrispenEvan said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
ChrispenEvan said:it is a direct quote, whether tweeted or written elsewhere makes little difference.
How do we know it is a direct quote though?
I guess you could do a search…
Tim Smith MP
TimSmithMP
·
Jun 25
Replying to
Leo_Puglisi6
Yes, I’m pleased our country has been spared the spectacle of what’s going on in America. Our constitution is, in my humble opinion, far better at dealing with these types of controversies. The Sovereign is the apex of our constitutional arrangements. Your point is what exactly?
ChrispenEvan said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
ChrispenEvan said:it is a direct quote, whether tweeted or written elsewhere makes little difference.
How do we know it is a direct quote though?
I guess you could do a search…
I might just wait until it goes to court.
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Any idea what “trying to verbal me” means?
Normally, to verbal someone is to fabricate a spoken confession. It was popular in Qld back in the day.
Its use by Smith here is odd, given that Twitter is not a spoken medium and no fabrication has taken place.
OK
So is it possible the tweet he is complaining about is not something he actually tweeted?
No. The Tweet is still there on his profile.
dv said:
Tamb said:
dv said:
Proof again that Americans just don’t get irony.
That was serious then ?
dv said:
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:Normally, to verbal someone is to fabricate a spoken confession. It was popular in Qld back in the day.
Its use by Smith here is odd, given that Twitter is not a spoken medium and no fabrication has taken place.
OK
So is it possible the tweet he is complaining about is not something he actually tweeted?No. The Tweet is still there on his profile.
OK, I shall follow the legal proceedings with mild interest.
Fact checked: true
dv said:
Um indeed.
dv said:
I’m antiabortion, love mah guns, capital punishment is cool, bombing Muslims is the Christian way, universal healthcare is commie, and all life is precious
Cymek said:
Tamb said:
dv said:
Proof again that Americans just don’t get irony.That was serious then ?
no but they get l… la… laid¿ le… lead¡ yes that’s it
Only tangentially on topic but what the fucking hell.
https://www.insider.com/pregnant-women-in-the-us-homicide-leading-cause-of-death-report-says-2021-12
Homicide is the leading cause of death for pregnant women in the United States, a new study found
In late November, Shaterica Anderson, a pregnant 28-year-old from Texas, was shot to death by her longtime boyfriend on their son’s fourth birthday.
He shot her in the head four times and left her body in her home with their five children. He has now been charged with her murder.
Days later, the body of Andreae Lloyd, a 27-year-old pregnant woman from Miami-Dade, was found in a woodland area. Her boyfriend confessed to killing her.
Pregnant Brittani Duffy, 27, in New York was also killed by her boyfriend weeks before.
According to a new nationwide study, these deaths are not just individual tragedies but are part of a troubling epidemic.
The study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, found that pregnant women and women who have recently given birth in the United States are twice as likely to die by homicide than pregnancy-related causes such as hemorrhage or hypertension
All your questions about high blood pressure, answeredHigh blood pressure is a common medical condition that can lead to heart disease, if it’s left untreated. Here’s how to know your risk and lower it.Read more
.
Researchers found that two-thirds of the fatal injuries occurred in the home, suggesting that the perpetrator was most likely a partner.
The United States has a high maternal mortality rate
The United States already has a much higher maternal mortality rate than most wealthy nations.
In 2018, there were 17 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births in the US — more than double that of most other high-income countries, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
But when tracking deaths among pregnant women in the United States, homicide is not even classified as a cause of “maternal mortality.”
Many researchers believe that this should change, arguing that there is a link between homicide and pregnancy.
——
https://www.insider.com/states-passing-abortion-bans-have-highest-infant-mortality-rates-2019-5
With Friday’s Supreme court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade – the landmark case guaranteeing a right to abortion – 13 states with automatic trigger laws enacted total or near-total bans on abortions.
The surge of new abortion bans and clinic closures has highlighted the recent rise in America’s maternal mortality rates that are disproportionately affecting women of color and have placed the US first in maternal deaths among all developed nations.
According to 2020 data from the Centers for Disease Control on infant death rates and a 2018 USA Today investigation on maternal mortality rates in the 46 states with available data, nearly all of the states who have recently passed restrictive bans on abortion rank in the top 10 states for maternal mortality, infant mortality, or both.
——-
Here is the abstract for the top paper.
https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/2021/11000/Homicide_During_Pregnancy_and_the_Postpartum.10.aspx
The US is a real hell hole
dv said:
Only tangentially on topic but what the fucking hell.https://www.insider.com/pregnant-women-in-the-us-homicide-leading-cause-of-death-report-says-2021-12
Homicide is the leading cause of death for pregnant women in the United States, a new study found
In late November, Shaterica Anderson, a pregnant 28-year-old from Texas, was shot to death by her longtime boyfriend on their son’s fourth birthday.
He shot her in the head four times and left her body in her home with their five children. He has now been charged with her murder.
Days later, the body of Andreae Lloyd, a 27-year-old pregnant woman from Miami-Dade, was found in a woodland area. Her boyfriend confessed to killing her.
Pregnant Brittani Duffy, 27, in New York was also killed by her boyfriend weeks before.
According to a new nationwide study, these deaths are not just individual tragedies but are part of a troubling epidemic.
The study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, found that pregnant women and women who have recently given birth in the United States are twice as likely to die by homicide than pregnancy-related causes such as hemorrhage or hypertension
All your questions about high blood pressure, answeredHigh blood pressure is a common medical condition that can lead to heart disease, if it’s left untreated. Here’s how to know your risk and lower it.Read more
.
Researchers found that two-thirds of the fatal injuries occurred in the home, suggesting that the perpetrator was most likely a partner.
The United States has a high maternal mortality rate
The United States already has a much higher maternal mortality rate than most wealthy nations.
In 2018, there were 17 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births in the US — more than double that of most other high-income countries, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
But when tracking deaths among pregnant women in the United States, homicide is not even classified as a cause of “maternal mortality.”
Many researchers believe that this should change, arguing that there is a link between homicide and pregnancy.
——
https://www.insider.com/states-passing-abortion-bans-have-highest-infant-mortality-rates-2019-5With Friday’s Supreme court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade – the landmark case guaranteeing a right to abortion – 13 states with automatic trigger laws enacted total or near-total bans on abortions.
The surge of new abortion bans and clinic closures has highlighted the recent rise in America’s maternal mortality rates that are disproportionately affecting women of color and have placed the US first in maternal deaths among all developed nations.
According to 2020 data from the Centers for Disease Control on infant death rates and a 2018 USA Today investigation on maternal mortality rates in the 46 states with available data, nearly all of the states who have recently passed restrictive bans on abortion rank in the top 10 states for maternal mortality, infant mortality, or both.
——-
Here is the abstract for the top paper.
https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/2021/11000/Homicide_During_Pregnancy_and_the_Postpartum.10.aspx
The US is a real hell hole
Interesting isn’t the word I should use but the statistics 10 years down the track on increased homicides, backyard abortion gone wrong, more profoundly disabled children born are likely to have increased
The Supreme Court prompts the question: Who gets rights in America?
By Karin Brulliard
June 25, 2022 at 7:37 p.m. EDT
Amy Martin was 14 years old when Roe v. Wade was decided, establishing a right to abortion that she took for granted for nearly five decades. Martin was 56 when the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in 2015, a right she took advantage of when she married her partner of 30 years last week.
And when the court overturned that first decision on Friday, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing in his opinion that the court should next reexamine cases granting LGBTQ rights, Martin found herself seized with new terror that the second one could also fall.
“What if gay marriage is the next thing?” said Martin, 63, who recently retired from her job at a Cleveland law office, and whose health-care benefits come from her wife’s policy. “The fabric of our country and what it’s been based on, it’s fraying.”
As the implications of the court’s abortion decision continued to reverberate across a divided country on Saturday, many of those who decried the ruling expressed mounting worry that it would not simply restrict abortion access. Instead, they said they saw in the ruling a watershed that could trigger the repeal of a host of other protections — for racial and ethnic minorities, gay people and others — that were established on similar legal grounds as Roe. That possibility was not just paranoid speculation, they noted: It was spelled out by several Supreme Court justices on Friday.
In interviews, many Americans described alarm that a nation proud of its hard-won expansion of protections for people never acknowledged by its White, male founders had begun to feel more like an unfamiliar land where established rights may melt away in its highest court. The prospect was all the more disturbing, some said, because polls have found a majority of Americans support abortion rights and same-sex marriage.
“It’s like we’ve woken up in the 1950s,” said Madison David, 26, a massage therapist who on Saturday morning was perusing the stalls at a farmers market outside the Capitol building in Madison, Wis. For weeks, she said, she had been riding high on Lizzo’s anthem “About Damn Time,” which David said she views as an ode to the progress women and other historically oppressed groups have made. Now, she said, the ruling had reaffirmed for her the need to prepare to fight for rights — even ones that seemed to have been secured by previous generations.
“We can’t be naive and think that this is where this stops,” said David’s friend, 27-year-old yoga teacher Aurora Guppy Weil.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., rested on the view that the individual liberties guaranteed by the 14th Amendment protect only rights that had “deep roots” in states when it was ratified in 1868 — a time when abortion was prohibited in many states. Alito took pains to say the ruling would not jeopardize precedents unrelated to abortion, which he wrote is distinct because it destroys an “unborn human being,” which the state also has an interest in protecting.
But other justices plainly dismissed his contention. In a concurring opinion, fellow conservative Thomas said precedents establishing rights to contraception, same-sex marriage and same-sex intimacy should be reconsidered. And the dissenting opinion, penned by the court’s three liberals, excoriated Alito’s reassurances as false promises.
Those other rights, the dissenters wrote, are “all part of the same constitutional fabric,” noting that 19th century laws also did not protect the Supreme Court-recognized rights to interracial marriage or to not be sterilized without consent. They wrote that they “cannot understand how anyone can be confident that today’s opinion will be the last of its kind.”
That concern has been echoed by legal experts, who said the decision could threaten other past rulings that rest on individual liberty protections and related privacy rights recognized by the court.
“The court has for a long, long time said: Look, if we define liberty only in terms of what was permitted at the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment, then we’re stuck in time,” said Scott Skinner-Thompson, an associate professor of law at the University of Colorado Boulder. “Because in the 18th and 19th centuries, this country was not very free for many, many people — particularly women, particularly people of color.”
Although Thomas’s concurring opinion did not mention it, the ruling could even imperil the right to interracial marriage, which the Supreme Court recognized in its 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia, Skinner-Thompson said. (Thomas, who is Black, is married to a White woman.)
Thomas’s “potential retort would be that that violates the Equal Protection clause, because it’s race-based discrimination,” Skinner-Thompson said. “The problem is that if you take the originalists’ interpretation at face value and say: ‘What were the practices of this country at the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment after the Civil War?’ Guess what? There was race discrimination all over the place. Separate but equal — it continued apace for over a century.”
The first post-Roe morning dawned sunny in Pittsburgh, where residents of the Bloomfield neighborhood were completing their typical Saturday morning shopping at an outdoor market. But some filling their bags with cucumbers, jars of sauerkraut and clutches of pink peonies mused that nothing seemed regular or normal about the past 24 hours.
“I didn’t think this would happen in my lifetime or anyone’s lifetime, really,” said Kathleen McHugh, 28, a White management consultant who was with her partner, Alex Klinestiver, 30, who is Black. “The people deciding this are completely unaffected by the effects of this,” she said she told Klinestiver when she heard about the ruling Friday. “And now Thomas is licking his chops to change other things that we’ve come to expect, to know.”
That prospect has already prompted Rachel Christian, 29, and her wife, Vania Christian, 36, to discuss their own next steps. After learning about Thomas’s explicit references to same-sex marriage and intimacy as potential targets, the Baltimore couple agreed they would go forward with formally adopting their 11-month-old daughter, Liesel, who rested in her stroller at the city’s pride parade Saturday afternoon while 4-year-old sister, Athena, relaxed in a wagon.
Should their marriage be invalidated, they decided, they need the strongest possible evidence that they are both Liesel’s parents — despite the fact that Vania provided the embryo and Rachel gave birth to Liesel. “After yesterday, we’re like, maybe now we need to rethink. Because nobody thought this was going to happen, and it did,” Vania said.
Rainbow flags and dance music erupted in joyful celebration around the family. But a sense of seriousness and urgency was reflected in signs reading, “Bans off our bodies.”
“It’s a beautiful thing to do today. But in the back of your mind you’re thinking like, what’s the future going to look like?” Rachel Christian said.
In New York City, Kyle Fowler, a lawyer at the Legal Aid Society who specializes in housing, ate lunch in a public plaza straddling the Theater District and Hell’s Kitchen and said he feared the ruling could eventually cost him the right to marry another man. While he and other attorneys he knows had long feared the implications of such a ruling, it has been “an epiphany for a lot of people,” Fowler said.
“With every appointment Trump made to the Supreme Court, I felt like all of these things are under threat,” Fowler said, adding that the appointments constructed “a slippery slope” and overturning Roe “felt like an inevitability.”
Julie Taylor, 55, describes herself as a Christian and supports abortion in limited circumstances, such as rape, incest and the safety of the mother. But Taylor, who was at Jack London Square near the waterfront in Oakland, Calif., on Saturday, said she wants abortion to remain available to women, “because it’s their bodies.”
The overturning of Roe v. Wade sets the country on the wrong path, said Taylor. “We’re going back in time. It’s never good to go back. It’s like we’re going back to slavery. Women are now second-class citizens. We fought so hard to get to this point, and now, you’re taking us back.”
And Taylor, who is Black, said she fears other rights are also at risk. “Here’s the deal: You’re taking their freedom. My freedom is next,” she said. “You never know when they’re coming after you.”
Martin, the Ohio retiree, said the ruling — and the political and legal head winds she perceives — had so dismayed her that she felt glad she was “at this stage in my life, because I wouldn’t want to live another 20 or 30 years — I’ll be long gone before we see change in the right direction … I think it’s going to be a lot worse before it gets better.”
But others said the decision was galvanizing. Mary Kay Watson, who works in the automotive industry and lives north of Detroit, said she long assessed political candidates’ views on abortion as one consideration among many. The right to the procedure seemed firm, she said.
But Friday’s ruling — which she said she worries could affect her two daughters’ ability to receive medical care if, for example, one miscarried in a state where abortion is banned — changed that.
“For me personally, now, I’m done. I’m doing away with the, ‘Let’s take a view on what the person is as a whole’” said Watson, 56. “If you are anti-choice, you are not my choice. Period.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/25/abortion-constitutional-rights/?
In practical terms its not going to matter, women will just travel to progressive stares to kill their kids
I was watching something today that describes how the child is killed, a tool is inserted and the limbs ripped off one by one, then the head is crushed after the body is ripped off.
I periodically have to service abortion clinics, I do my business and get out
wookiemeister said:
In practical terms its not going to matter, women will just travel to progressive stares to kill their kidsI was watching something today that describes how the child is killed, a tool is inserted and the limbs ripped off one by one, then the head is crushed after the body is ripped off.
I periodically have to service abortion clinics, I do my business and get out
such an evocative anti-abortion diescription of an abortion.
Now try to do the same about a woman with an ectopic pregnancy.
sarahs mum said:
wookiemeister said:
In practical terms its not going to matter, women will just travel to progressive stares to kill their kidsI was watching something today that describes how the child is killed, a tool is inserted and the limbs ripped off one by one, then the head is crushed after the body is ripped off.
I periodically have to service abortion clinics, I do my business and get out
such an evocative anti-abortion diescription of an abortion.
Now try to do the same about a woman with an ectopic pregnancy.
The child is torn apart, piece by piece
You don’t have a problem with that do you ?
Its easier to fool people than try to tell them they’ve been lied to
People don’t like to think they’ve been fooled.
wookiemeister said:
sarahs mum said:
wookiemeister said:
In practical terms its not going to matter, women will just travel to progressive stares to kill their kidsI was watching something today that describes how the child is killed, a tool is inserted and the limbs ripped off one by one, then the head is crushed after the body is ripped off.
I periodically have to service abortion clinics, I do my business and get out
such an evocative anti-abortion diescription of an abortion.
Now try to do the same about a woman with an ectopic pregnancy.
Take it as you like itThe child is torn apart, piece by piece
You don’t have a problem with that do you ?
there you go. you are calling it a child.
And I am sure some embryos are removed in pieces and some aren’t. Most would be very small when removed.
So do you have a problem with women dying of an ectopic pregnancy?
sarahs mum said:
wookiemeister said:
sarahs mum said:such an evocative anti-abortion diescription of an abortion.
Now try to do the same about a woman with an ectopic pregnancy.
Take it as you like itThe child is torn apart, piece by piece
You don’t have a problem with that do you ?
there you go. you are calling it a child.
And I am sure some embryos are removed in pieces and some aren’t. Most would be very small when removed.
So do you have a problem with women dying of an ectopic pregnancy?
Don’t call it a child
If you call it a child people will get angry
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure
Canada Will Still Allow Americans To Receive Abortions, Trudeau Suggests
Not everyone is certain that Canada can become a “safe haven” for women in the US hit by the recent Supreme Court ruling.
https://www.iflscience.com/canada-will-still-allow-americans-to-receive-abortions-trudeau-suggests-64216
—
That’s a bit Handmaid’s tale.
Lukas Nelson & Promise of the Real
Yesterday at 04:30 ·
I wrote this song last night. Here are the lyrics… Somewhere in our great country She met an alright guy He showed her his apartment He couldn’t hide his pride When she refused to bed him He didn’t like her tone The door was locked behind them No one else was home Now the stars don’t shine for her at night They’re just holes in the sky they don’t give no light And the darkness lingers Endlessly For she must carry the seed Somewhere in our great country Daddy’s little girl Does her fathers bidding She’s never seen the world They go to church on Sunday He seems a righteous man Though often she looks frightened And no one understands That the stars don’t shine for her at night They’re just holes in the sky they don’t give no light And the darkness lingers Endlessly For she must carry the seed She grew up in our great country Young and pretty too She dreamed to be a mother That dream almost came true But her baby died inside her before she was due When she was forced to have her she came out still and blue Now the stars don’t shine for her at night They’re just holes in the sky they don’t give no light And the darkness lingers Endlessly For she must carry the seed
https://fb.watch/dV9Dd2OmHh/
So many ‘bum’ atonal notes in the guitar picking. It’s so hard to listen to.
sarahs mum said:
Lukas Nelson & Promise of the Real
Yesterday at 04:30 ·
I wrote this song last night. Here are the lyrics… Somewhere in our great country She met an alright guy He showed her his apartment He couldn’t hide his pride When she refused to bed him He didn’t like her tone The door was locked behind them No one else was home Now the stars don’t shine for her at night They’re just holes in the sky they don’t give no light And the darkness lingers Endlessly For she must carry the seed Somewhere in our great country Daddy’s little girl Does her fathers bidding She’s never seen the world They go to church on Sunday He seems a righteous man Though often she looks frightened And no one understands That the stars don’t shine for her at night They’re just holes in the sky they don’t give no light And the darkness lingers Endlessly For she must carry the seed She grew up in our great country Young and pretty too She dreamed to be a mother That dream almost came true But her baby died inside her before she was due When she was forced to have her she came out still and blue Now the stars don’t shine for her at night They’re just holes in the sky they don’t give no light And the darkness lingers Endlessly For she must carry the seedhttps://fb.watch/dV9Dd2OmHh/
So many ‘bum’ atonal notes in the guitar picking. It’s so hard to listen to.
Intentionally bad notes. He’s a very good gitar player.
sarahs mum said:
Canada Will Still Allow Americans To Receive Abortions, Trudeau Suggests
Not everyone is certain that Canada can become a “safe haven” for women in the US hit by the recent Supreme Court ruling.That’s a bit Handmaid’s tale.
will they have to send the refugees to Uganda though
A Louisiana judge has blocked a statewide ban on abortion, and clinics in Kentucky and Idaho sued to obtain similar relief, after the US Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to the procedure nationwide.
The three states are among the 13 with “trigger laws” designed to ban or severely restrict abortions once the Supreme Court overturned the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade ruling that recognised a right to the procedure, as it was on Friday.
In Louisiana, abortion services that had been halted since Friday began resuming after Orleans Parish Civil District Court Judge Robin Giarrusso on Monday issued a temporary restraining order blocking the state from carrying out its ban.
The order came shortly after Hope Medical Group for Women in Shreveport — one of Louisiana’s three abortion clinics — sued, arguing Louisiana’s trigger laws “lack constitutionally required safeguards to prevent arbitrary enforcement”.
The judge set a July 8 hearing to decide whether to further block enforcement of the ban, which Hope Medical said violated its due process rights under the state’s constitution.
I think this whole debate is an attack on human rights by religious and pro-life supporters who do not accept that other people have rights.
A woman’s body, its her choice not someone else’s choice.
Speedy said:
It angers me that we are still having this debate in 2022.
Tau.Neutrino said:
I think this whole debate is an attack on human rights by religious and pro-life supporters who do not accept that other people have rights.A woman’s body, its her choice not someone else’s choice.
I’m sure that all of us on this holiday island are of a similar mindset.
Speedy said:
✅
Tau.Neutrino said:
Speedy said:
It angers me that we are still having this debate in 2022.
I’ve heard it is a moving tapestry. Weave some positive threads and your anger will tend to dissolve somewhat.
roughbarked said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Speedy said:
It angers me that we are still having this debate in 2022.
I’ve heard it is a moving tapestry. Weave some positive threads and your anger will tend to dissolve somewhat.
A moving tapestry of men wanting to control women.
Those men would not like their bodies controlled.
It would be a positive step if the religious and pro-lifers were to accept that women can make their own choices.
Speedy said:
Yes.
roughbarked said:
Speedy said:
✅
fair enough, Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett do look like old white men
SCIENCE said:
roughbarked said:
Speedy said:
✅
fair enough, Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett do look like old white men
Tamb said:
SCIENCE said:roughbarked said:
✅
fair enough, Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett do look like old white men
The decision was so that attention is diverted away from the anti gun question.
Not really. One, RvW is a much more significant decision and two, this ruling has been expected for months now.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tamb said:
SCIENCE said:fair enough, Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett do look like old white men
The decision was so that attention is diverted away from the anti gun question.Not really. One, RvW is a much more significant decision and two, this ruling has been expected for months now.
Tamb said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tamb said:The decision was so that attention is diverted away from the anti gun question.
Not really. One, RvW is a much more significant decision and two, this ruling has been expected for months now.
Nevertheless, there is no anti gun discussion now.
Because it pales in comparison to overturning RvW.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tamb said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Not really. One, RvW is a much more significant decision and two, this ruling has been expected for months now.
Nevertheless, there is no anti gun discussion now.Because it pales in comparison to overturning RvW.
by number of murders or some other measure
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tamb said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Not really. One, RvW is a much more significant decision and two, this ruling has been expected for months now.
Nevertheless, there is no anti gun discussion now.Because it pales in comparison to overturning RvW.
Tamb said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tamb said:The decision was so that attention is diverted away from the anti gun question.
Not really. One, RvW is a much more significant decision and two, this ruling has been expected for months now.
Nevertheless, there is no anti gun discussion now.
there is actually… at the moment the discussion is mainly focused on the decision the SCOTUS made to overturn a law in New York regarding carrying a concealed handgun
this happed the day before the Roe decision
Tamb said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tamb said:Nevertheless, there is no anti gun discussion now.
Because it pales in comparison to overturning RvW.
In American eyes the gun discussion is more important as it concerns constitutional rights and freedom.
The question of abortion has always been a bigger target for conservatives (and by extension the GOP) simply because it’s a freedom that existed that they didn’t want to exist. The issue of gun ownership is just ongoing background noise in comparison to the effort that has been placed into overturning Roe
diddly-squat said:
Tamb said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Not really. One, RvW is a much more significant decision and two, this ruling has been expected for months now.
Nevertheless, there is no anti gun discussion now.there is actually… at the moment the discussion is mainly focused on the decision the SCOTUS made to overturn a law in New York regarding carrying a concealed handgun
this happed the day before the Roe decision
They also made a ruling whose effect is to permit public school sports coaches to lead prayer during games.
Tamb said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tamb said:Nevertheless, there is no anti gun discussion now.
Because it pales in comparison to overturning RvW.
In American eyes the gun discussion is more important as it concerns constitutional rights and freedom.
Not true I’m afraid.
dv said:
diddly-squat said:
Tamb said:Nevertheless, there is no anti gun discussion now.
there is actually… at the moment the discussion is mainly focused on the decision the SCOTUS made to overturn a law in New York regarding carrying a concealed handgun
this happed the day before the Roe decision
They also made a ruling whose effect is to permit public school sports coaches to lead prayer during games.
And government funding for religious schools.
Tamb said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tamb said:The decision was so that attention is diverted away from the anti gun question.
Not really. One, RvW is a much more significant decision and two, this ruling has been expected for months now.
Nevertheless, there is no anti gun discussion now.
Roflwhat? Maybe you don’t read broadly enough.
One piece of good news was that the Senate just pass the first major piece of gun control legislation in about a decade. The Bill “would toughen background checks for the youngest gun buyers, keep firearms from more domestic violence offenders, and help states put in place red-flag laws that make it easier for authorities to take weapons from people judged to be dangerous. It would also fund local programs for school safety, mental health and violence prevention.”
It would be good if it also expanded background checks for older gun buyers but you’ll take what you can get.
It’s worth noting that a plain read of the Constitution does not inhibit the government from gun control measures, and indeed there were gun control laws right from Federation onwards.
dv said:
Tamb said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Not really. One, RvW is a much more significant decision and two, this ruling has been expected for months now.
Nevertheless, there is no anti gun discussion now.Roflwhat? Maybe you don’t read broadly enough.
One piece of good news was that the Senate just pass the first major piece of gun control legislation in about a decade. The Bill “would toughen background checks for the youngest gun buyers, keep firearms from more domestic violence offenders, and help states put in place red-flag laws that make it easier for authorities to take weapons from people judged to be dangerous. It would also fund local programs for school safety, mental health and violence prevention.”
It would be good if it also expanded background checks for older gun buyers but you’ll take what you can get.
It’s worth noting that a plain read of the Constitution does not inhibit the government from gun control measures, and indeed there were gun control laws right from Federation onwards.
I really do think that a reasonable answer is to enforce gun licensing where owners undergo annual training specific to their firearm as well as make the owners of guns responsible for safe storage of their firearms (such that they are held culpable if their firearm is stolen and used in a crime).
diddly-squat said:
dv said:
Tamb said:Nevertheless, there is no anti gun discussion now.
Roflwhat? Maybe you don’t read broadly enough.
One piece of good news was that the Senate just pass the first major piece of gun control legislation in about a decade. The Bill “would toughen background checks for the youngest gun buyers, keep firearms from more domestic violence offenders, and help states put in place red-flag laws that make it easier for authorities to take weapons from people judged to be dangerous. It would also fund local programs for school safety, mental health and violence prevention.”
It would be good if it also expanded background checks for older gun buyers but you’ll take what you can get.
It’s worth noting that a plain read of the Constitution does not inhibit the government from gun control measures, and indeed there were gun control laws right from Federation onwards.
I really do think that a reasonable answer is to enforce gun licensing where owners undergo annual training specific to their firearm as well as make the owners of guns responsible for safe storage of their firearms (such that they are held culpable if their firearm is stolen and used in a crime).
Perhaps guns can be made smarter so it requires a specific finger/thumb print to unlock or even remote shut down via wifi/bluetooth.
Somewhat fanciful but not impossible in the long run if that aren’t willing to ban all assault type weapons
I did indeed lol.
dv said:
diddly-squat said:
Tamb said:Nevertheless, there is no anti gun discussion now.
there is actually… at the moment the discussion is mainly focused on the decision the SCOTUS made to overturn a law in New York regarding carrying a concealed handgun
this happed the day before the Roe decision
They also made a ruling whose effect is to permit public school sports coaches to lead prayer during games.
Won’t that lead to quite a few losses?
sibeen said:
dv said:
diddly-squat said:there is actually… at the moment the discussion is mainly focused on the decision the SCOTUS made to overturn a law in New York regarding carrying a concealed handgun
this happed the day before the Roe decision
They also made a ruling whose effect is to permit public school sports coaches to lead prayer during games.
Won’t that lead to quite a few losses?
Conflict for god there
sibeen said:
dv said:
diddly-squat said:there is actually… at the moment the discussion is mainly focused on the decision the SCOTUS made to overturn a law in New York regarding carrying a concealed handgun
this happed the day before the Roe decision
They also made a ruling whose effect is to permit public school sports coaches to lead prayer during games.
Won’t that lead to quite a few losses?
Well I suppose that’s a theological question
I seriously wonder what black activists have said about this?
mollwollfumble said:
I seriously wonder what black activists have said about this?
If only there were some simple way to find out.
dv said:
mollwollfumble said:
I seriously wonder what black activists have said about this?If only there were some simple way to find out.
Fat Albert should know
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/28/why-us-woman-are-deleting-their-period-tracking-apps
Meanwhile, a pickup truck ploughed through protesters in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, hospitalizing one woman. The Cedar Rapids police department declined to comment on the incident. The state recently passed a law making it legal for drivers to hit protesters with vehicles in certain circumstances. Other states in the US have passed similar laws.
say what?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/28/peaceful-pro-choice-protests-violence-attacks-police
sarahs mum said:
Meanwhile, a pickup truck ploughed through protesters in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, hospitalizing one woman. The Cedar Rapids police department declined to comment on the incident. The state recently passed a law making it legal for drivers to hit protesters with vehicles in certain circumstances. Other states in the US have passed similar laws.say what?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/28/peaceful-pro-choice-protests-violence-attacks-police
Run over the dogs.
Didn’t we have a minister who said something like that?
roughbarked said:
Run over the dogs.
While Oklahoma, South Dakota and Alabama have brought in restrictive abortion laws in recent years, there is one state that suddenly finds itself with an abortion ban without any changes in legislation.
In Wisconsin the near-total abortion ban has been on the books since 1849. Although attitudes have changed to abortion over the past 50 years, no one bothered to update the statutes, even when Democrats held the legislature, because Roe v Wade effectively made the law unenforceable. However it is now back in force.
Right now the state legislature is in Republican hands but the Governor and the Attorney General are both Democrats: the latter has said that he will not prosecute these cases, and the former says that he will grant clemency to any doctors affected by the legislation.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wisconsin-gov-vows-grant-clemency-doctors-charged-state-abortion-ban-rcna35479
dv said:
Madagascar did surprise me.
sarahs mum said:
fucking hell
dv said:
What do the black dots in France and Italy represent?
Ian said:
dv said:
What do the black dots in France and Italy represent?
The black dots near France and Italy represent small countries such as Andorra.
dv said:
Ian said:
dv said:
What do the black dots in France and Italy represent?
The black dots near France and Italy represent small countries such as Andorra.
Suppose the apparent enclave on the west coast of Italy is Vatican City
dv said:
Ian said:
dv said:
What do the black dots in France and Italy represent?
The black dots near France and Italy represent small countries such as Andorra.
But what about the red dots inside France and Italy?
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
Ian said:What do the black dots in France and Italy represent?
The black dots near France and Italy represent small countries such as Andorra.
But what about the red dots inside France and Italy?
One of the dark spots in Italy is of course the Vatican city.
Bubblecar said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:The black dots near France and Italy represent small countries such as Andorra.
But what about the red dots inside France and Italy?
One of the dark spots in Italy is of course the Vatican city.
It is the red one to the East I am wondering about.
Does Venice have its own rules?
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bubblecar said:
The Rev Dodgson said:But what about the red dots inside France and Italy?
One of the dark spots in Italy is of course the Vatican city.
It is the red one to the East I am wondering about.
Does Venice have its own rules?
Perhaps San Marino.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bubblecar said:
The Rev Dodgson said:But what about the red dots inside France and Italy?
One of the dark spots in Italy is of course the Vatican city.
It is the red one to the East I am wondering about.
Does Venice have its own rules?
Italy allows for “conscientious objection” to abortion by doctors, and apparently almost seven out of ten fit that category.
Map here:
Abortion is a right in Italy. For many women, getting one is nearly impossible
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/05/europe/italy-abortion-intl/
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bubblecar said:
The Rev Dodgson said:But what about the red dots inside France and Italy?
One of the dark spots in Italy is of course the Vatican city.
It is the red one to the East I am wondering about.
Does Venice have its own rules?
San Marino, a sovereign state.
A couple of the dots to the north of France are Alderney and Sark.
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bubblecar said:One of the dark spots in Italy is of course the Vatican city.
It is the red one to the East I am wondering about.
Does Venice have its own rules?
Perhaps San Marino.
Yes, that looks about right.
So how about the one in northern France? I presume the one just above it in the English Channel is the Channel Islands. I’m surprised they have their own abortion laws, but there are are many weird rules for offshore bits of the UK.
https://youtu.be/wOvvBWSBwU0
Constitutional lawyer breaks down the basis for Roe v Wade and other “due process” rights, and the potential consequences of its reversal.
My son and his family in America have decided the financial benefit of staying in America no longer outweigh living in a failing society.
DiL is in a scheme where if she works in a government hospital for X amount of time half her student loans are forgiven. She is now 3/4 of the way done.
They are now fasttracking their plans for her to legally move to Australia permanently despite it most likely costing them close to 100k.
Hoping to be out of there before the end of next year.
Trevtaowillgetyounowhere said:
My son and his family in America have decided the financial benefit of staying in America no longer outweigh living in a failing society.DiL is in a scheme where if she works in a government hospital for X amount of time half her student loans are forgiven. She is now 3/4 of the way done.
They are now fasttracking their plans for her to legally move to Australia permanently despite it most likely costing them close to 100k.
Hoping to be out of there before the end of next year.
They’ll miss the top notch public hospital system I bet and being able to walk around like cowpeople’s
Trevtaowillgetyounowhere said:
My son and his family in America have decided the financial benefit of staying in America no longer outweigh living in a failing society.DiL is in a scheme where if she works in a government hospital for X amount of time half her student loans are forgiven. She is now 3/4 of the way done.
They are now fasttracking their plans for her to legally move to Australia permanently despite it most likely costing them close to 100k.
Hoping to be out of there before the end of next year.
sounds good. expensive but then peace of mind doesn’t always come cheap.
Cymek said:
Trevtaowillgetyounowhere said:
My son and his family in America have decided the financial benefit of staying in America no longer outweigh living in a failing society.DiL is in a scheme where if she works in a government hospital for X amount of time half her student loans are forgiven. She is now 3/4 of the way done.
They are now fasttracking their plans for her to legally move to Australia permanently despite it most likely costing them close to 100k.
Hoping to be out of there before the end of next year.
They’ll miss the top notch public hospital system I bet and being able to walk around like cowpeople’s
flock immunity
Cymek said:
Trevtaowillgetyounowhere said:
My son and his family in America have decided the financial benefit of staying in America no longer outweigh living in a failing society.DiL is in a scheme where if she works in a government hospital for X amount of time half her student loans are forgiven. She is now 3/4 of the way done.
They are now fasttracking their plans for her to legally move to Australia permanently despite it most likely costing them close to 100k.
Hoping to be out of there before the end of next year.
They’ll miss the top notch public hospital system I bet and being able to walk around like cowpeople’s
Maybe. Despite it being an absolute cluster fuck in many ways it’s her home.
Big step to move half way round the world.
Bogsnorkler said:
Trevtaowillgetyounowhere said:
My son and his family in America have decided the financial benefit of staying in America no longer outweigh living in a failing society.DiL is in a scheme where if she works in a government hospital for X amount of time half her student loans are forgiven. She is now 3/4 of the way done.
They are now fasttracking their plans for her to legally move to Australia permanently despite it most likely costing them close to 100k.
Hoping to be out of there before the end of next year.
sounds good. expensive but then peace of mind doesn’t always come cheap.
one year’s combined median income for the chance to not be bankrupted 20 times over by asthma, sounds like a good deal to us
SCIENCE said:
Bogsnorkler said:
Trevtaowillgetyounowhere said:
My son and his family in America have decided the financial benefit of staying in America no longer outweigh living in a failing society.DiL is in a scheme where if she works in a government hospital for X amount of time half her student loans are forgiven. She is now 3/4 of the way done.
They are now fasttracking their plans for her to legally move to Australia permanently despite it most likely costing them close to 100k.
Hoping to be out of there before the end of next year.
sounds good. expensive but then peace of mind doesn’t always come cheap.
one year’s combined median income for the chance to not be bankrupted 20 times over by asthma, sounds like a good deal to us
Stop having the wars and have a free healthcare system instead.
Trevtaowillgetyounowhere said:
My son and his family in America have decided the financial benefit of staying in America no longer outweigh living in a failing society.DiL is in a scheme where if she works in a government hospital for X amount of time half her student loans are forgiven. She is now 3/4 of the way done.
They are now fasttracking their plans for her to legally move to Australia permanently despite it most likely costing them close to 100k.
Hoping to be out of there before the end of next year.
My BiL lives in Salt Lake City with his American wife, the two kids they have together as well as two kids she has from a previous relationship and the one kid he has from a previous relationship. My MiL is constantly talking about how they are going to move back but the reality is that it’s just simply too expensive and too disruptive to pick up their lives as well as the lives of their kids and move to another country. That and his wife’s family all live in SLC so it would also mean uprooting their entire support network.
It’s certainly a big call…
diddly-squat said:
Trevtaowillgetyounowhere said:
My son and his family in America have decided the financial benefit of staying in America no longer outweigh living in a failing society.DiL is in a scheme where if she works in a government hospital for X amount of time half her student loans are forgiven. She is now 3/4 of the way done.
They are now fasttracking their plans for her to legally move to Australia permanently despite it most likely costing them close to 100k.
Hoping to be out of there before the end of next year.
My BiL lives in Salt Lake City with his American wife, the two kids they have together as well as two kids she has from a previous relationship and the one kid he has from a previous relationship. My MiL is constantly talking about how they are going to move back but the reality is that it’s just simply too expensive and too disruptive to pick up their lives as well as the lives of their kids and move to another country. That and his wife’s family all live in SLC so it would also mean uprooting their entire support network.
It’s certainly a big call…
Indeed. Part of me is super selfish and is like fuck yes, my boy is home after 10 years of being overseas. The other part is also selfish.
But your right I worry his wife although right now seems happy will struggle later.
Trevtaowillgetyounowhere said:
My son and his family in America have decided the financial benefit of staying in America no longer outweigh living in a failing society.DiL is in a scheme where if she works in a government hospital for X amount of time half her student loans are forgiven. She is now 3/4 of the way done.
They are now fasttracking their plans for her to legally move to Australia permanently despite it most likely costing them close to 100k.
Hoping to be out of there before the end of next year.
good. excellent.
wookiemeister said:
SCIENCE said:
Bogsnorkler said:sounds good. expensive but then peace of mind doesn’t always come cheap.
one year’s combined median income for the chance to not be bankrupted 20 times over by asthma, sounds like a good deal to us
The yank gov gave 60 billion dollars of weapons/ aid to ukraine or more and left 90 billion dollars of weapons in Afghanistan last yearStop having the wars and have a free healthcare system instead.
they spend more govt monies on their health system and get that shit.
Antiabortion lawmakers want to block patients from crossing state lines
Some advocacy groups and their allies are crafting legislative language that could be adopted in Republican-led state capitals.
By Caroline Kitchener and Devlin Barrett
June 29, 2022 at 6:17 p.m. EDT
Several national antiabortion groups and their allies in Republican-led state legislatures are advancing plans to stop people in states where abortion is banned from seeking the procedure elsewhere, according to people involved in the discussions.
The idea has gained momentum in some corners of the antiabortion movement in the days since the Supreme Court struck down its 49-year-old precedent protecting abortion rights nationwide, triggering abortion bans across much of the Southeast and Midwest.
The Thomas More Society, a conservative legal organization, is drafting model legislation for state lawmakers that would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a resident of a state that has banned abortion from terminating a pregnancy outside of that state. The draft language will borrow from the novel legal strategy behind a Texas abortion ban enacted last year in which private citizens were empowered to enforce the law through civil litigation.
The subject was much discussed at two national antiabortion conferences last weekend, with several lawmakers interested in introducing these kinds of bills in their own states.
The National Association of Christian Lawmakers, an antiabortion organization led by Republican state legislators, has begun working with the authors of the Texas abortion ban to explore model legislation that would restrict people from crossing state lines for abortions, said Texas state representative Tom Oliverson ®, the charter chair of the group’s national legislative council.
“Just because you jump across a state line doesn’t mean your home state doesn’t have jurisdiction,” said Peter Breen, vice president and senior counsel for the Thomas More Society. “It’s not a free abortion card when you drive across the state line.”
The Biden Justice Department has already warned states that it would fight such laws, saying they violate the right to interstate commerce.
In relying on private citizens to enforce civil litigation, rather than attempting to impose a state-enforced ban on receiving abortions across state lines, such a law is more difficult to challenge in court because abortion rights groups don’t have a clear person to sue.
Like the Texas abortion ban, the proposal itself could have a chilling effect, where doctors in surrounding states stop performing abortions before courts have an opportunity to intervene, worried that they may face lawsuits if they violate the law.
Not every antiabortion group is on board with the idea.
Catherine Glenn Foster, president of Americans United for Life, noted that people access medical procedures across state lines all the time.
“I don’t think you can prevent that,” she said.
While some antiabortion groups aspire to push Congress to pass a national abortion ban, restricting movement across state lines would represent another step in limiting the number of abortions performed in the United States.
These kinds of bills could be proposed even before state legislatures reconvene for their regular 2023 legislative sessions, said Arkansas state Sen. Jason Rapert ®. His home state, he said, may soon address this issue in an already planned special session. Another Arkansas senator, he said, has expressed interest in introducing that legislation.
“Many of us have supported legislation to stop human trafficking,” said Rapert, president of the National Association of Christian Lawmakers. “So why is there a pass on people trafficking women in order to make money off of aborting their babies?”
In a television interview over the weekend, South Dakota Gov. Kristi L. Noem ® left the door open to restricting out-of-state abortions in her state, where a trigger ban took effect as soon as Roe was overturned. The governor, who has called a special session to discuss abortion legislation, said the topic may be debated in South Dakota in the future.
Dale Bartscher, the executive director of South Dakota Right to Life, the leading antiabortion organization in South Dakota, said he was “very interested” in stopping South Dakota residents from accessing abortion in other states.
“I’ve heard that bantered about across the state of South Dakota,” he said, though he would not discuss the goal of the upcoming special session.
The idea to restrict out-of-state abortions surfaced earlier this year, when Missouri state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman ® proposed legislation that relied on the Texas-style enforcement mechanism. While Coleman’s bill failed to pass in the 2022 legislative session, Coleman said she has heard from multiple lawmakers and antiabortion advocates in other states who are eager to pursue similar legislation.
The issue is particularly pertinent in Coleman’s home state of Missouri, which outlawed abortion with a trigger ban that took effect within an hour of the Supreme Court’s decision. As many as 14,000 people are expected to flood into southern Illinois this year, including thousands of Missouri residents, according to Planned Parenthood.
Several Democrat-led states have passed legislation this year to counteract laws that try to restrict movement across state lines.
Connecticut passed a law in April that offers broad protections from antiabortion laws that try to reach into other states. The measure would shield people from out-of-state summonses or subpoenas issued in cases related to abortion procedures that are legal in Connecticut. And it would prevent Connecticut authorities from adhering to another state’s request to investigate or punish anyone involved in facilitating a legal abortion in Connecticut.
“Legislators in states have made clear that their intent is not only to ban abortion within their own state’s borders, but to ban it in states where it is expressly permitted,” Connecticut state Rep. Matt Blumenthal (D) said in an interview in April.
California passed a similar law Thursday, aiming to protect abortion providers and patients from civil suits.
The Justice Department has already signaled its intention to fight against these kinds of laws in court.
In a statement Friday, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe “does not eliminate the ability of states to keep abortion legal within their borders. And the Constitution continues to restrict states’ authority to ban reproductive services provided outside their borders.”
That declaration suggests that if a particular state did pass a law seeking to prevent women from traveling across state lines to receive an abortion, the Justice Department might file court papers opposing such a law. That strategy was ultimately unsuccessful in the Justice Department’s opposition to the Texas law limiting many abortions, but any new state law that involved interstate travel could raise additional legal questions for the courts.
Garland argued that the Constitution was unequivocal on the legality of crossing state lines for medical treatment.
“We recognize that traveling to obtain reproductive care may not be feasible in many circumstances. But under bedrock constitutional principles, women who reside in states that have banned access to comprehensive reproductive care must remain free to seek that care in states where it is legal,” Garland said, adding that the First Amendment safeguards anyone who offers information or counseling about “reproductive care that is available in other states.”
A Justice Department spokesman did not elaborate on the attorney general’s statement.
David Cohen, a Drexel University law professor who has studied these kinds of proposals, noted that Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh addressed interstate travel in a separate concurring opinion he wrote along with the ruling to overturn Roe, where he specified that people could not be prosecuted for out-of-state abortions.
But Kavanaugh’s concurrence does not address the civil enforcement strategy that is gaining traction among antiabortion groups, Cohen said.
“This is going to create state-against-state and state-against-federal chaos that we haven’t seen in this country in a long time.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/abortion-state-lines/?
Witty Rejoinder said:
Antiabortion lawmakers want to block patients from crossing state lines
Some advocacy groups and their allies are crafting legislative language that could be adopted in Republican-led state capitals.By Caroline Kitchener and Devlin Barrett
June 29, 2022 at 6:17 p.m. EDTSeveral national antiabortion groups and their allies in Republican-led state legislatures are advancing plans to stop people in states where abortion is banned from seeking the procedure elsewhere, according to people involved in the discussions.
The idea has gained momentum in some corners of the antiabortion movement in the days since the Supreme Court struck down its 49-year-old precedent protecting abortion rights nationwide, triggering abortion bans across much of the Southeast and Midwest.
The Thomas More Society, a conservative legal organization, is drafting model legislation for state lawmakers that would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a resident of a state that has banned abortion from terminating a pregnancy outside of that state. The draft language will borrow from the novel legal strategy behind a Texas abortion ban enacted last year in which private citizens were empowered to enforce the law through civil litigation.
The subject was much discussed at two national antiabortion conferences last weekend, with several lawmakers interested in introducing these kinds of bills in their own states.
The National Association of Christian Lawmakers, an antiabortion organization led by Republican state legislators, has begun working with the authors of the Texas abortion ban to explore model legislation that would restrict people from crossing state lines for abortions, said Texas state representative Tom Oliverson ®, the charter chair of the group’s national legislative council.
….
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/abortion-state-lines/?
People will just leave the state permanently rather than return and risk litigation.
I wonder if they will start preg checking women before they go to Canada.
https://www.facebook.com/ProLifeWife
dv said:
https://www.facebook.com/ProLifeWife
This reminds me of comments from my mother when I was growing up. There was a rabid anti-abortionist woman by the name of Margaret Tighe in Melbourne. We lived not very far from the Orana children’s home in Burwood. My mother said she never noticed Margaret Tighe or her right to life group lining up at Orana to look after the children.
buffy said:
dv said:
https://www.facebook.com/ProLifeWife
This reminds me of comments from my mother when I was growing up. There was a rabid anti-abortionist woman by the name of Margaret Tighe in Melbourne. We lived not very far from the Orana children’s home in Burwood. My mother said she never noticed Margaret Tighe or her right to life group lining up at Orana to look after the children.
By the way…those dates don’t work for a six month old child.
It’s not the peasants who are revolting, it’s the judiciary.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-01/florida-kentucky-trigger-abortion-bans-put-on-hold/101199614
buffy said:
buffy said:
dv said:
https://www.facebook.com/ProLifeWife
This reminds me of comments from my mother when I was growing up. There was a rabid anti-abortionist woman by the name of Margaret Tighe in Melbourne. We lived not very far from the Orana children’s home in Burwood. My mother said she never noticed Margaret Tighe or her right to life group lining up at Orana to look after the children.
By the way…those dates don’t work for a six month old child.
How so?
She could have talked someone who was five months pregnant out of an abortion in February, and the baby was born in June, and she posted this in December when it was 6 months old.
dv said:
buffy said:
buffy said:This reminds me of comments from my mother when I was growing up. There was a rabid anti-abortionist woman by the name of Margaret Tighe in Melbourne. We lived not very far from the Orana children’s home in Burwood. My mother said she never noticed Margaret Tighe or her right to life group lining up at Orana to look after the children.
By the way…those dates don’t work for a six month old child.
How so?
She could have talked someone who was five months pregnant out of an abortion in February, and the baby was born in June, and she posted this in December when it was 6 months old.
It is presented as if it is a current post.
buffy said:
dv said:
buffy said:By the way…those dates don’t work for a six month old child.
How so?
She could have talked someone who was five months pregnant out of an abortion in February, and the baby was born in June, and she posted this in December when it was 6 months old.
It is presented as if it is a current post.
Well it’s several years old.
dv said:
buffy said:
buffy said:This reminds me of comments from my mother when I was growing up. There was a rabid anti-abortionist woman by the name of Margaret Tighe in Melbourne. We lived not very far from the Orana children’s home in Burwood. My mother said she never noticed Margaret Tighe or her right to life group lining up at Orana to look after the children.
By the way…those dates don’t work for a six month old child.
How so?
She could have talked someone who was five months pregnant out of an abortion in February, and the baby was born in June, and she posted this in December when it was 6 months old.
It is presented as if it is a current post. The only time is 1hr.
buffy said:
dv said:
buffy said:By the way…those dates don’t work for a six month old child.
How so?
She could have talked someone who was five months pregnant out of an abortion in February, and the baby was born in June, and she posted this in December when it was 6 months old.
It is presented as if it is a current post. The only time is 1hr.
Oh dear.
A few things
(1) The rubber won’t really hit the road on this issue until we start to see how prosecutors are going to apply these laws
(2) It’s unlikely states will be able to ban travel on the basis of an individual seeking healthcare
(3) the next big battle ground here will be how (specific) abortion medication as well as the morning after pill (known in the states as Plan B)
diddly-squat said:
(2) It’s unlikely states will be able to ban travel on the basis of an individual seeking healthcare
fair point remember how far they got with banning travel on the basis of preserving the health of millions of individuals
SCIENCE said:
diddly-squat said:
(2) It’s unlikely states will be able to ban travel on the basis of an individual seeking healthcare
fair point remember how far they got with banning travel on the basis of preserving the health of millions of individuals
US Citizens have a constitutional right to free movement between states
I’m assuming with the banning of abortion, huge amounts of money will be allocated to helping mothers and children from birth through to adulthood
That way in 18 years time they will have a whole lot more soldier to fight a war
Cymek said:
I’m assuming with the banning of abortion, huge amounts of money will be allocated to helping mothers and children from birth through to adulthood
That way in 18 years time they will have a whole lot more soldier to fight a war
https://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-walking-baby-stroller-shot-death-nyc/story?id=85973793
diddly-squat said:
(2) It’s unlikely states will be able to ban travel on the basis of an individual seeking healthcare
There’s plenty of precedent of prosecutions for crossing state lines to, for instance, obtain drugs that are legal in the target state and illegal in the origin state, or to have sex with someone who is over the AOC in the target state but not in the origin state. How well they could police these abortion travellers, I don’t know.
dv said:
diddly-squat said:(2) It’s unlikely states will be able to ban travel on the basis of an individual seeking healthcare
There’s plenty of precedent of prosecutions for crossing state lines to, for instance, obtain drugs that are legal in the target state and illegal in the origin state, or to have sex with someone who is over the AOC in the target state but not in the origin state. How well they could police these abortion travellers, I don’t know.
which goes back to my point (1)
dv said:
I think you can safely say that the Dems won’t stack the court and the GOP has no need to…
having said that, the last time the size of the court was increased it was to address a fundamentally conservative bias and to constitutionally abolish slavery
dv said:
There you go.
Michael V said:
dv said:
There you go.
Yeah, and you end up with a supreme court with a thousand judges. And then some more…
sibeen said:
Michael V said:
dv said:
There you go.
Yeah, and you end up with a supreme court with a thousand judges. And then some more…
well it has to be supreme in one way or another yeah
these are politicians, maybe they reckon they can get people to vote harder and then swell the supreme but only after that
SCIENCE said:
sibeen said:
Michael V said:
There you go.
Yeah, and you end up with a supreme court with a thousand judges. And then some more…
well it has to be supreme in one way or another yeah
these are politicians, maybe they reckon they can get people to vote harder and then swell the supreme but only after that
Surely three black women would be enough to be The Supreme’s Court
Cymek said:
SCIENCE said:sibeen said:
Yeah, and you end up with a supreme court with a thousand judges. And then some more…
well it has to be supreme in one way or another yeah
these are politicians, maybe they reckon they can get people to vote harder and then swell the supreme but only after that
Surely three black women would be enough to be The Supreme’s Court
Or four
Cymek said:
Cymek said:
SCIENCE said:
well it has to be supreme in one way or another yeah
these are politicians, maybe they reckon they can get people to vote harder and then swell the supreme but only after that
Surely three black women would be enough to be The Supreme’s Court
Or four
remember this
The US Supreme Court has imposed limits on the United States government’s authority to issue sweeping regulations to reduce carbon emissions from power plants.
I’m not sure how much effect a protest in hobart can have..
sarahs mum said:
I’m not sure how much effect a protest in hobart can have..
It’s not a finished issue in Australia. There’s a bipartisan parliamentary contigent going to an anti abortion event in Adelaide soon.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/01/south-australian-liberal-leader-and-state-mps-to-mentor-young-people-at-anti-abortion-event
dv said:
sarahs mum said:
I’m not sure how much effect a protest in hobart can have..
It’s not a finished issue in Australia. There’s a bipartisan parliamentary contigent going to an anti abortion event in Adelaide soon.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/01/south-australian-liberal-leader-and-state-mps-to-mentor-young-people-at-anti-abortion-event
okay. ta.
in Tassie one must fly to melbourne. It is legal here but not provided.
And of course Senator Stoker spoke at an anti abortion rally not long before the election
Former senator Stoker
dv said:
sarahs mum said:
I’m not sure how much effect a protest in hobart can have..
It’s not a finished issue in Australia. There’s a bipartisan parliamentary contigent going to an anti abortion event in Adelaide soon.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/01/south-australian-liberal-leader-and-state-mps-to-mentor-young-people-at-anti-abortion-event
Calling that bipartisan is a bit of a stretch. 4 Libs, which the majority of their supporters wouldn’t support them on; and one Labor politician. does not bipartisan make IMHO. It’s just 5 nutters who managed to get voted in.
US Supreme Court tells fibs.
https://www.boredpanda.com/american-abortion-history-twitter/
captain_spalding said:
US Supreme Court tells fibs.https://www.boredpanda.com/american-abortion-history-twitter/
Well there you go.
Michael V said:
captain_spalding said:
US Supreme Court tells fibs.https://www.boredpanda.com/american-abortion-history-twitter/
Well there you go.
Note that the claim is that abortion is not “deeply rooted” in American culture, not that it wasn’t an uncommon practice.
Dark Orange said:
Michael V said:
captain_spalding said:
US Supreme Court tells fibs.https://www.boredpanda.com/american-abortion-history-twitter/
Well there you go.
Note that the claim is that abortion is not “deeply rooted” in American culture, not that it wasn’t an uncommon practice.
Well, I reckon that’s a pretty deep root – 1700’s.
Michael V said:
Dark Orange said:
Michael V said:Well there you go.
Note that the claim is that abortion is not “deeply rooted” in American culture, not that it wasn’t an uncommon practice.
Well, I reckon that’s a pretty deep root – 1700’s.
Yeah, when it appears to have been a common practice, conducted by midwives, and everyone freely uses the term at the time your country is ‘founded’, i’d suspect that there roots go down a fair way.
It is interesting how well the terms ‘American culture’ and ‘deeply rooted’ go together, although perhaps in an unintended way.
captain_spalding said:
Michael V said:
Dark Orange said:Note that the claim is that abortion is not “deeply rooted” in American culture, not that it wasn’t an uncommon practice.
Well, I reckon that’s a pretty deep root – 1700’s.
Yeah, when it appears to have been a common practice, conducted by midwives, and everyone freely uses the term at the time your country is ‘founded’, i’d suspect that there roots go down a fair way.
It is interesting how well the terms ‘American culture’ and ‘deeply rooted’ go together, although perhaps in an unintended way.
LOLOLOL
captain_spalding said:
Michael V said:
Dark Orange said:Note that the claim is that abortion is not “deeply rooted” in American culture, not that it wasn’t an uncommon practice.
Well, I reckon that’s a pretty deep root – 1700’s.
Yeah, when it appears to have been a common practice, conducted by midwives, and everyone freely uses the term at the time your country is ‘founded’, i’d suspect that there roots go down a fair way.
It is interesting how well the terms ‘American culture’ and ‘deeply rooted’ go together, although perhaps in an unintended way.
isn’t that how they come
to need abortions anyway
captain_spalding said:
US Supreme Court tells fibs.https://www.boredpanda.com/american-abortion-history-twitter/
I have read a long time ago that the american indians used herbs to abort. Black cohosh is one iirc.
https://youtu.be/AHd40VoGvSE
Joy Reid gives a summary of the outcomes of this completed Supreme Court term.
sarahs mum said:
captain_spalding said:
US Supreme Court tells fibs.https://www.boredpanda.com/american-abortion-history-twitter/
I have read a long time ago that the american indians used herbs to abort. Black cohosh is one iirc.
I was once told that pennyroyal tea was no longer imported because it was an abortifact.
Let’s talk about Ohio, Indiana, a girl, and the Supreme Court….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyZkhr7aQNw
A Mighty Girl
· Izabela Sajbor was thrilled to discover she was pregnant last year, eager for a sibling for her 9-year-old daughter, Maja. The 30-year-old from the small town of Pszczyna in southern Poland was devastated to learn in her 14th week of pregnancy that the fetus had Edwards syndrome, a severe chromosomal abnormality which leads to nearly all babies dying before birth or shortly thereafter. Izabela wanted to have an abortion, but it was illegal due to Poland’s strict abortion ban. She was considering seeking an abortion abroad but then her water broke at 22 weeks. She was admitted to the hospital where she texted her mother: “I have to give birth to a dead baby.”At the hospital, however, Izabela found the care she expected was not forthcoming. From her hospital bed, Izabela told her mother that the doctors were waiting for the fetus’ heart to stop beating before they would perform a cesarean section. While the doctors refused to act due to their concerns that their actions could be considered as performing an abortion, making them subject to criminal prosecution in Poland, Izabela wrote a series of increasingly desperate texts to her family. “My life is in danger,” she wrote as she began vomiting and convulsing, a sepsis infection now spreading through her body. “They cannot help as long as the fetus is alive thanks to the anti-abortion law. A woman is like an incubator.” By the time the fetal heartbeat stopped, it was too late — Izabela died of the now raging sepsis infection only a few hours later.
Even though Poland’s strict abortion ban provides an exception for when a pregnant woman’s life is at risk, women’s experience in the country shows that, in practice, the fear the abortion ban generates among medical professionals often prevents this exception from saving women’s lives. Numerous stories like Izabela’s are now emerging out of Poland, those of women’s entirely preventable deaths that were brought about by doctors too scared of the legal repercussions of the country’s regressive anti-abortion law to provide critically needed medical care to women. Earlier this year, a 37-year-old woman carrying twins died of an infection after one of the fetuses died and doctors refused to remove it for a week due to concerns about harming the other fetus. In another case similar to Izabela’s, a woman died of an infection after her water broke at 19 weeks and doctors refused to remove the fetus until its heartbeat stopped four days later.
In case after case, “the law has a chilling effect on doctors,” says lawyer Jolanta Budzowska who is representing Izabela’s family and those of other women who have died in negligence cases related to the abortion law. Jan Kochanowicz, a doctor at University Clinical Hospital in Bialystok, agrees that the law has had a paralyzing effect on doctors. “This law creates problems for doctors and patients. There is no clear and straightforward answer to what constitutes a threat to a woman’s health and life. Doctors are afraid to make decisions.”
The implications of strict abortion bans also reach into another area of healthcare that few people consider until it directly affects them or a loved one. Dr. Sabine Müller, a gynecologist in Berlin who reserves half of her abortion slots for Polish women due to the high demand, says that as Poland has made their anti-abortion laws even more extreme over the years, the women’s “stories have gotten worse.” “We have a lot of Polish women with cancer who are told, ‘No, we can’t give you cancer treatment because you’re pregnant and it could hurt the baby,’” says Dr. Müller. She recounts the experience of one recent patient with metastasizing bronchial cancer who came for an abortion after her Polish doctor delayed her chemotherapy for six weeks. “Cancer spreads extremely fast during pregnancy,” observes Dr. Müller. “A six-week delay is almost a death sentence.”
For many women in the 26 U.S. states that have laws or amendments that now ban abortion or will do so in the near future, the experiences of women in Poland offer a glimpse at a terrifying future. While at present, most of these states have exceptions to the abortion bans in the case of a woman’s life being in danger, as Poland demonstrates, such exceptions are often insufficient in ensuring that women will receive life-saving care when they need it. In states with the most extreme laws such as the one in Texas under which medical professionals convicted of performing an abortion would be guilty of a first-degree felony, punishable by up to life in prison, there is widespread concern about bans will have a devastating impact on pregnant women’s access to healthcare, whether critically needed care during an obstetric emergency like a prolonged miscarriage or treatment for a potentially lethal disease like cancer.
With the end of Roe, some extremist politicians are now calling for even stricter abortion bans in the U.S. with no exception for the life of a pregnant woman — a radical position that puts them at odds with the 87% of Americans who support access to abortion when a woman’s life is in danger. This extreme position has even been adopted by some politicians in more moderate states such as the swing state of Pennsylvania where the current Republican candidate for governor Doug Mastriano supports an absolute abortion ban with zero exceptions for rape, incest, or to save a woman’s life. The outcome of this single election in November, in which he is running against Democrat Josh Shapiro, the state’s current attorney general, will determine the outcome of reproductive rights in that state. Recognizing that his hardliner position is out of step with a majority of Pennsylvanian voters, who believe that abortion should be legal under most circumstances according to a recent political poll, Mastriano is now calling discussion about abortion — a topic that he previously declared to be his ‘number one issue’ — a “distraction.”
Anti-abortion absolutists — whose opinions run very counter to the average American, including the average Republican who support the inclusion of exceptions in abortion bans for rape, incest, or when a women’s life is at risk by wide margins — are now attempting to downplay concerns about the far-reaching implications of such extreme laws on women’s health and well-being, referring to those voicing concern as “hysterics.” As the experience of women in Poland demonstrates, however, even such minimal exceptions to abortion bans will be insufficient to stop women dying, particularly during obstetric emergencies when these highly punitive bans will make doctors hesitate to act for fear of miscalculating if a woman’s life is ‘truly’ in danger and finding themselves in the sights of a zealous prosecutor for an abortion crime. It’s no surprise that the inhumane treatment of women like Izabela leads many in Poland and elsewhere to wonder: how does a movement that professes to hold the sanctity of life above all else justify such draconian laws that led to terrifying, painful, and entirely preventable deaths for women?
Google says it will delete location history for visits to abortion clinics after overturning of Roe v. Wade
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/01/google-will-delete-location-history-for-visits-to-abortion-clinics.html
Tau.Neutrino said:
Google says it will delete location history for visits to abortion clinics after overturning of Roe v. Wade
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/01/google-will-delete-location-history-for-visits-to-abortion-clinics.html
so they support the SCOTUS decision and will make it harder to find places to go
SCIENCE said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Google says it will delete location history for visits to abortion clinics after overturning of Roe v. Wade
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/01/google-will-delete-location-history-for-visits-to-abortion-clinics.html
so they support the SCOTUS decision and will make it harder to find places to go
https://god.dailydot.com/students-anti-abortion-assembly/
“As a millennial, I am continually in awe of this generation’s dedication to stand up for what’s right ,” wrote another. “Proud of y’all.”
Bogsnorkler said:
https://god.dailydot.com/students-anti-abortion-assembly/“As a millennial, I am continually in awe of this generation’s dedication to stand up for what’s right ,” wrote another. “Proud of y’all.”
well they should be ashamed of themselves and their anti life bigotry, they should remember the anthropic principle and realise that they could only be there to protest because they hadn’t been aborted
SCIENCE said:
Bogsnorkler said:
https://god.dailydot.com/students-anti-abortion-assembly/“As a millennial, I am continually in awe of this generation’s dedication to stand up for what’s right ,” wrote another. “Proud of y’all.”
well they should be ashamed of themselves and their anti life bigotry, they should remember the anthropic principle and realise that they could only be there to protest because they hadn’t been aborted
Tamb said:
SCIENCE said:
Bogsnorkler said:
https://god.dailydot.com/students-anti-abortion-assembly/“As a millennial, I am continually in awe of this generation’s dedication to stand up for what’s right ,” wrote another. “Proud of y’all.”
well they should be ashamed of themselves and their anti life bigotry, they should remember the anthropic principle and realise that they could only be there to protest because they hadn’t been aborted
With these people is there a case for retrospective abortion?
Cymek said:
Tamb said:
SCIENCE said:well they should be ashamed of themselves and their anti life bigotry, they should remember the anthropic principle and realise that they could only be there to protest because they hadn’t been aborted
With these people is there a case for retrospective abortion?
Tamb said:
Yes. That’s what I meant. Big words are confusing.
Ever thought of journalism as a career?
captain_spalding said:
Tamb said:Yes. That’s what I meant. Big words are confusing.
Ever thought of journalism as a career?
captain_spalding said:
Tamb said:Yes. That’s what I meant. Big words are confusing.
Ever thought of journalism as a career?
I guess if the average australian was more erudite (Def: having or showing great knowledge or learning.) then journos could use bigger words.
Bogsnorkler said:
captain_spalding said:
Tamb said:Yes. That’s what I meant. Big words are confusing.
Ever thought of journalism as a career?
I guess if the average australian was more erudite (Def: having or showing great knowledge or learning.) then journos could use bigger words.
Thanks.
Here was me thinking that erudite was some sort of mineral.
captain_spalding said:
Bogsnorkler said:
captain_spalding said:Ever thought of journalism as a career?
I guess if the average australian was more erudite (Def: having or showing great knowledge or learning.) then journos could use bigger words.
Thanks.
Here was me thinking that erudite was some sort of mineral.
Tamb said:
captain_spalding said:
Bogsnorkler said:I guess if the average australian was more erudite (Def: having or showing great knowledge or learning.) then journos could use bigger words.
Thanks.
Here was me thinking that erudite was some sort of mineral.
From which is extracted the mineral erudium.
Like they use in the Q-36 Space Modulator?
what if the average australian was a ruddite
SCIENCE said:
what if the average australian was a ruddite
Throwing sabos into the gears of political machination
Cymek said:
SCIENCE said:
what if the average australian was a ruddite
Throwing sabos into the gears of political machination
What is a sabos?
Michael V said:
Cymek said:
SCIENCE said:
what if the average australian was a ruddite
Throwing sabos into the gears of political machination
What is a sabos?
Michael V said:
Cymek said:
SCIENCE said:
what if the average australian was a ruddite
Throwing sabos into the gears of political machination
What is a sabos?
Tamb said:
Michael V said:
Cymek said:Throwing sabos into the gears of political machination
What is a sabos?
Sabot?
Yes sorry forgot the t
Michael V said:
Cymek said:
SCIENCE said:
what if the average australian was a ruddite
Throwing sabos into the gears of political machination
What is a sabos?
Workers protesting about the replacement of people by machines would chuck them into the works.
Cymek said:
Michael V said:
Cymek said:Throwing sabos into the gears of political machination
What is a sabos?
- it was originally used to refer to labour disputes, in which workers wearing wooden shoes called sabots interrupted production through different means.
Cymek said:
Tamb said:
Michael V said:What is a sabos?
Sabot?Yes sorry forgot the t
Cymek said:
Michael V said:
Cymek said:Throwing sabos into the gears of political machination
What is a sabos?
- it was originally used to refer to labour disputes, in which workers wearing wooden shoes called sabots interrupted production through different means.
Ta.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabot_(shoe)
Michael V said:
Cymek said:Throwing sabos into the gears of political machination
What is a sabos?
Ian said:
Michael V said:
Cymek said:Throwing sabos into the gears of political machination
What is a sabos?
I learned to sail in one of those little bathtubs
In God We Trust
SCIENCE said:
In God We Trust
E Pluribus Unum was a better motto
dv said:
SCIENCE said:
In God We Trust
E Pluribus Unum was a better motto
well we’ve all moved on from all those archaic ideas and documents from the 1780s, it’s a modern democratic and free country these days
10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortion
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/03/ohio-indiana-abortion-rape-victim
Oh FFS …
Spiny Norman said:
Oh FFS …
Sounds unlikely.
There’s nothing in the Bible against abortion, but there’s quite a bit there against swearing false oaths.
Peak Warming Man said:
Spiny Norman said:
Oh FFS …
Sounds unlikely.
This one’s real
Mississippi House Speaker Philip Gunn ® told reporters Wednesday it is his “personal belief” that if a 12-year-old girl is a victim of incest she should still be made to carry a resulting pregnancy to term.
https://www.wbtw.com/nexstar-media-wire/mississippi-house-speaker-says-12-year-old-incest-victims-should-continue-pregnancies-to-term/
dv said:
There’s nothing in the Bible against abortion, but there’s quite a bit there against swearing false oaths.
High childhood mortality might have meant human life was slightly less not valuable back then so all babies should be born to ensure some more might survive.
Today we have far more people than what we know to do with so abortion is an option
Cymek said:
dv said:
There’s nothing in the Bible against abortion, but there’s quite a bit there against swearing false oaths.
High childhood mortality might have meant human life was slightly less not valuable back then so all babies should be born to ensure some more might survive.
Today we have far more people than what we know to do with so abortion is an option
do we need to kill the mother of an anencephalic fetus
SCIENCE said:
Cymek said:
dv said:
There’s nothing in the Bible against abortion, but there’s quite a bit there against swearing false oaths.
High childhood mortality might have meant human life was slightly less not valuable back then so all babies should be born to ensure some more might survive.
Today we have far more people than what we know to do with so abortion is an option
do we need to kill the mother of an fetus
I imagine not
US President Joe Biden has signed an executive order designed to protect millions of American women’s access to abortion in states where the procedure remains legal.
SCIENCE said:
US President Joe Biden has signed an executive order designed to protect millions of American women’s access to abortion in states where the procedure remains legal.
He couldn’t do this before?
well fk whaddya know, turns out that it was all just a cynical false flag operation by Dirty Democrats to garner support and Steal another election to grab more power
Mr Biden’s executive order comes as he faces criticism from some in his own party for not acting more urgently to protect women’s access to abortion.
But since the Supreme Court’s decision, the President has stressed that his ability to protect abortion rights by executive action is limited without congressional action, and that Democrats do not have the votes in the current Congress to do so.
“We need two additional pro-choice senators and a pro-choice house to codify Roe,” he said. In an impassioned plea, he urged upset Americans to vote in November. “The fastest way to restore Roe is to pass a national law,” Mr Biden said. “Your vote can make that a reality.”
Mr Biden for the first time last week announced his support for changing Senate rules to allow a measure to restore nationwide access to abortion to pass by simple majority, rather than the usual 60-vote threshold required to end a filibuster.
captain_spalding said:
SCIENCE said:
US President Joe Biden has signed an executive order designed to protect millions of American women’s access to abortion in states where the procedure remains legal.He couldn’t do this before?
In fairness this basically has no effect. It does nothing to help women in the places where abortion is now illegal.
SCIENCE said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
SCIENCE said:
indeed STEMocracy would be better
Law degrees require higher ATARS than science degrees.
wait so it’s a problem with supply and demand you’re right
thank fuck these places have clever people on a supreme pizza
SCIENCE said:
SCIENCE said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Law degrees require higher ATARS than science degrees.
wait so it’s a problem with supply and demand you’re right
thank fuck these places have clever people on a supreme pizza
Supreme court judges that abuse peoples rights.
Judge that everyone.
Tau.Neutrino said:
SCIENCE said:SCIENCE said:
wait so it’s a problem with supply and demand you’re right
thank fuck these places have clever people on a supreme pizza
Supreme court judges that abuse peoples rights.
Judge that everyone.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
SCIENCE said:thank fuck these places have clever people on a supreme pizza
Supreme court judges that abuse peoples rights.
Judge that everyone.
Trump partly caused that Supreme ClusterFuck
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
SCIENCE said:thank fuck these places have clever people on a supreme pizza
Supreme court judges that abuse peoples rights.
Judge that everyone.
The USA seemingly wasn’t set up very well, put all this power into the hands of a few people that dictate rights to hundreds of millions and its a capitalistocracy
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Supreme court judges that abuse peoples rights.
Judge that everyone.
Trump partly caused that Supreme ClusterFuck
Trump “Hm, I’ll appointment a Catholic women, can’t go wrong with that”
calm down at least they had high intelligence scores
Cymek said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Trump partly caused that Supreme ClusterFuck
Trump “Hm, I’ll appointment a Catholic women, can’t go wrong with that”
I think Trump did a dirty deal in there somewhere.
Cymek said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Supreme court judges that abuse peoples rights.
Judge that everyone.
The USA seemingly wasn’t set up very well, put all this power into the hands of a few people that dictate rights to hundreds of millions and its a capitalistocracy
The capitalistocracy funds both major parties. The problem is a lack of egalitarianism like that in most of the western world has seen no rise in real wages in 30 years. In that time Australia’s have risen 50%. No wonder some Americans have turned to populists like Trump.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Cymek said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The USA seemingly wasn’t set up very well, put all this power into the hands of a few people that dictate rights to hundreds of millions and its a capitalistocracy
The capitalistocracy funds both major parties. The problem is a lack of egalitarianism like that in most of the western world has seen no rise in real wages in 30 years. In that time Australia’s have risen 50%. No wonder some Americans have turned to populists like Trump.
He doesn’t really care about them though, a very good liar
sarahs mum said:
roughbarked said:
Labor to remake carbon credit committee after three controversial Coalition appointments resign
Should we be surprised that putting the foxes in charge of the hen house wasn’t a great idea?
imagine if bullshit appointments resigned in other free and democratic societies
SCIENCE said:
sarahs mum said:
roughbarked said:
Labor to remake carbon credit committee after three controversial Coalition appointments resign
Should we be surprised that putting the foxes in charge of the hen house wasn’t a great idea?
imagine if bullshit appointments resigned in other free and democratic societies
You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
Wait until the next SCOTUS season.
I’m looking at you ‘contraception’…
BUMP
Major legal fights loom over abortion pills, travel out of state
The reversal of Roe v. Wade after nearly 50 years is expected to trigger a new set of legal challenges for which there is little precedent
By Ann E. Marimow, Laurie McGinley and Caroline Kitchener
July 31, 2022 at 6:42 p.m. EDT
The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices, in denouncing their colleagues’ decision to eliminate the nationwide right to abortion, warned last month that returning this polarizing issue to the states would give rise to greater controversy in the months and years to come.
Among the looming disputes, they noted: Can states ban mail-order medication used to terminate pregnancies or bar their residents from traveling elsewhere to do so?
“Far from removing the court from the abortion issue,” Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan wrote in dissent, “the majority puts the court at the center of the coming ‘interjurisdictional abortion wars.’ ”
The overturning of Roe v. Wade after nearly 50 years is expected to trigger a new set of legal challenges for which there is little precedent, observers say, further roiling the nation’s bitter political landscape and compounding chaos as Republican-led states move quickly to curtail access to reproductive care. It is possible, if not probable, that one or both of these questions will eventually work its way back to the high court.
“Judges and scholars, and most recently the Supreme Court, have long claimed that abortion law will become simpler if Roe is overturned,” law professors David S. Cohen, Greer Donley and Rachel Rebouché wrote in a timely draft academic article cited by the dissenting justices, “but that is woefully naive.”
As a result of the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, abortions — both the surgical procedure and via medication — are banned or mostly banned in 13 states. Several others are expected to follow in coming weeks.
The Biden administration has pledged to ensure access to abortion medication, which is used in more than half of all terminated pregnancies in the United States, and prohibit states from preventing their residents from traveling out-of-state for care. But a month after the Dobbs ruling, administration officials are still debating how they can deliver on that promise beyond the president’s executive order to protect access. A White House meeting Friday with public-interest lawyers was designed to encourage legal representation for those seeking or offering reproductive health services.
Democratic leaders and liberal activists have called on President Biden to take bolder action, especially on medication abortion. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) said in an interview that he has directly urged the president to make clear that abortion providers in states controlled by Democrats should be able to ship pills to patients anywhere in the country, whether or not the patient’s state has enacted a ban. Pritzker advised the president to assert federal authority over the U.S. mail system, he said, and specify that no one will be prosecuted for prescribing or receiving them.
“People ought to be able to receive their medication in the privacy of their own home even if they live in a state where the procedure is not allowed,” Pritzker added, saying Biden appeared “very receptive” to the idea.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Pritzker’s characterization of the conversation.
Republican state attorneys general are preparing for a court fight, said Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), accusing Biden and the White House of exhibiting a “consistent disrespect for the law and the constitution and the Supreme Court.”
“We’re anticipating that he’s going to do this,” Marshall said.
Abortion pills
Already, the manufacturer of the abortion medication mifepristone has sued the state of Mississippi and promised that additional lawsuits would be filed in other states. It remains to be seen whether the Biden administration will intervene in one of those cases or file its own legal challenges.
The Justice Department has activated a “reproductive rights task force” to monitor and push back on state and local efforts to further restrict abortion, but officials have not fully detailed their plans. Attorney General Merrick Garland said during Friday’s White House event that “when we learn that states are infringing on federal protections, we will consider every tool at our disposal to affirm those protections — including filing affirmative suits, filing statements of interest, and intervening in private litigation.”
The Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone in 2000, finding it safe and effective to end an early pregnancy. The medication, now authorized for the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, is used with a second drug, misoprostol, to induce an abortion.
Among the unresolved questions is whether FDA approval of medication preempts state action. Legal experts say it is unclear whether the federal government would succeed if it challenged state restrictions on abortion medication, and that it will depend on how those measures are written.
Garland said soon after the Supreme Court overturned Roe that states may not ban mifepristone “based on a disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment.” The agency is charged with evaluating the safety and efficacy of drugs, and federal law generally preempts state law when two measures are in conflict.
Melissa Murray, a New York University law professor, said it was important for Garland to make a strong statement but that it is not a panacea in uncertain legal terrain.
“Even though the administration has said states can’t ban mifepristone on the grounds that it is somehow unsafe, that doesn’t mean they can’t ban it for other purposes. That’s an open question,” said Murray, who was written extensively about reproductive rights.
An administration heath official said the White House and the FDA realize that if states succeed in banning the abortion pill, or imposing sharp restrictions, the federal government’s authority on a range of medications could be undermined.
“If states want to ban vaccines, can they?” asked the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk about the issue. “What if a state were run by Scientologists?” the official said, referring to the movement that has long opposed psychiatric medications.
The FDA lifted some restrictions on abortion pills in December, permitting providers to send medication through the mail in states that do not prohibit telemedicine for abortions. At least 19 states ban the use of telehealth for medication abortion, and Republican lawmakers in more than a half-dozen states have introduced or passed legislation to ban or severely restrict abortion medication, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.
A case study
The federal case in Mississippi, filed before the Supreme Court’s June ruling in Dobbs, offers a window into the coming legal disputes over abortion pill access.
GenBioPro, which sells mifepristone, initially sued Mississippi in 2020 over additional requirements the state imposed, including a waiting period and counseling. The office of Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch ® said in recent court filings that the Supreme Court’s decision allowing states to ban abortion strengthens the state’s position. The case is not about the drug’s safety but the state’s authority over abortion “regardless of the means by which the abortion is induced,” Fitch’s office wrote.
Mississippi’s trigger law, which took effect in July and bans nearly all abortions, makes no distinction between surgical abortions or abortions induced by medication, the office said.
Gwyn Williams, an attorney for GenBioPro, said the FDA has the power to decide which medications are safe. Individual states, she said, “do not get to legislate away the power Congress granted to FDA.” The company, she said, intends to file additional legal challenges in other states.
Legal experts point to one of the few cases to raise similar questions. In 2014, Massachusetts tried to ban an FDA-approved opioid called Zohydro. Then-FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg recalled recently that she was deeply worried by the “rationale and the precedent it could set.” At the time, she warned Massachusetts officials that the move could prompt other states to ban “such vital medical products as birth control or RU-486,” the abortion pill.
A District Court judge sided with the opioid manufacturer and said the FDA’s approval preempted state law. Massachusetts withdrew its regulations and did not appeal, meaning other judges are not required to follow the same legal reasoning.
Lawrence O. Gostin, director of Georgetown University’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, said FDA approval of drugs, including in the abortion context, “should supersede any state restrictions” because the agency is responsible for setting a national uniform standard for what drug patients can get access to in the United States.
The Biden administration has an “extraordinarily strong legal claim,” he said. “Any other decision could open a floodgate of states making their own choices of FDA-approved medication, and that would be disastrous for the health and safety of Americans.”
Even so, he said the same conservative majority of the Supreme Court that erased the constitutional right to abortion “might just say, states license medical providers and can make judgments about what those providers can and can’t do.”
Ed Whelan, a fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, said federal preemption does not mean states are barred from dictating how — or whether — certain drugs can be used.
“Assume that the FDA approved a drug for use in physician-assisted suicide,” he wrote recently in National Review. “Why would anyone imagine that FDA approval overrode state laws barring physician-assisted suicide? Why should it be any different here?”
Out-of-state travel
In a separate opinion concurring with the Supreme Court majority in June, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote that the court’s decision does not mean a state may block a resident from traveling to another jurisdiction to obtain an abortion. He characterized the legal question as “not especially difficult as a constitutional matter” based on the “constitutional right to interstate travel.”
But Republican state lawmakers and national antiabortion groups have put forward plans to restrict out-of-state abortions and modeled those proposals on the Texas six-week abortion ban crafted to evade judicial review. A Missouri bill, which failed to pass during the 2022 legislative session, would have imposed civil liability on anyone who helped a resident travel out of state to obtain an abortion. South Dakota’s governor has said she is open to such proposals, and an Arkansas senator has also expressed interest in similar legislation.
The Justice Department has emphasized that the Supreme Court’s ruling does not prevent women from traveling across state lines to terminate a pregnancy. Citing “bedrock constitutional principles,” Garland said individuals residing in states where access to reproductive care is banned “must remain free to seek that care in states where it is legal.”
Legal experts, though, say these constitutional defenses are subject to debate and have not been tested in court. Even if the Justice Department filed a lawsuit challenging such restrictions, litigation takes time.
“It’s not going to be instantaneous,” said Murray, the law professor. “In the meantime, what you have is a landscape of confusion, chaos and uncertainty where patients don’t know what their rights are and physicians don’t know how their medical judgment will interact with laws on the ground. That climate of fear and confusion can be just as effective as an outright ban.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/31/abortion-medication-lawsuits/?
sibeen said:
BUMP
imagine if some regular contributor had helpfully mapped out the full list of threads and put it on a searchable page somewhere, which they even posted the link to in every Chat thread when they remembered to, for example
https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/?main=https%3A//tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/posts/1915278/
SCIENCE said:
sibeen said:
BUMP
imagine if some regular contributor had helpfully mapped out the full list of threads and put it on a searchable page somewhere, which they even posted the link to in every Chat thread when they remembered to, for example
https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/?main=https%3A//tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/posts/1915278/
When you think about it, that person would be a kind of hero.
The New York Times
52 mins ·
Breaking News: Kansas voters resoundingly decided against removing the right to abortion from the State Constitution, a major victory for the abortion rights movement in one of America’s most reliably conservative states.
sarahs mum said:
The New York Times
52 mins ·
Breaking News: Kansas voters resoundingly decided against removing the right to abortion from the State Constitution, a major victory for the abortion rights movement in one of America’s most reliably conservative states.
Good!
sarahs mum said:
The New York Times
52 mins ·
Breaking News: Kansas voters resoundingly decided against removing the right to abortion from the State Constitution, a major victory for the abortion rights movement in one of America’s most reliably conservative states.
sibeen said:
sarahs mum said:
The New York Times
52 mins ·
Breaking News: Kansas voters resoundingly decided against removing the right to abortion from the State Constitution, a major victory for the abortion rights movement in one of America’s most reliably conservative states.
Damn, not as close as the polls suggested…
dv said:
sibeen said:
sarahs mum said:
The New York Times
52 mins ·
Breaking News: Kansas voters resoundingly decided against removing the right to abortion from the State Constitution, a major victory for the abortion rights movement in one of America’s most reliably conservative states.
Damn, not as close as the polls suggested…
Still, 40% of the population are happy to remove women’s rights.
Kansas Result Suggests 4 Out of 5 States Would Back Abortion Rights in Similar Vote
From NYT:
A pregnant teenager will be blocked from getting an abortion, a Florida court ruled on Monday.
The 16-year-old initially petitioned to terminate her pregnancy, citing being a student and unemployed as reasons she is unprepared to have a baby.
A court ruled she was not mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion, blocking her from getting one.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/17/florida-pregnant-teenager-abortion-court
sibeen said:
A pregnant teenager will be blocked from getting an abortion, a Florida court ruled on Monday.The 16-year-old initially petitioned to terminate her pregnancy, citing being a student and unemployed as reasons she is unprepared to have a baby.
A court ruled she was not mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion, blocking her from getting one.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/17/florida-pregnant-teenager-abortion-court
Damn
sibeen said:
A pregnant teenager will be blocked from getting an abortion, a Florida court ruled on Monday.The 16-year-old initially petitioned to terminate her pregnancy, citing being a student and unemployed as reasons she is unprepared to have a baby.
A court ruled she was not mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion, blocking her from getting one.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/17/florida-pregnant-teenager-abortion-court
dv said:
sibeen said:
A pregnant teenager will be blocked from getting an abortion, a Florida court ruled on Monday.The 16-year-old initially petitioned to terminate her pregnancy, citing being a student and unemployed as reasons she is unprepared to have a baby.
A court ruled she was not mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion, blocking her from getting one.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/17/florida-pregnant-teenager-abortion-court
Damn
Wonder what would be their excuse if she dies during childbirth?
dv said:
sibeen said:
A pregnant teenager will be blocked from getting an abortion, a Florida court ruled on Monday.The 16-year-old initially petitioned to terminate her pregnancy, citing being a student and unemployed as reasons she is unprepared to have a baby.
A court ruled she was not mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion, blocking her from getting one.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/17/florida-pregnant-teenager-abortion-court
Damn
I am sure she will be supported though and not left to fend for herself
roughbarked said:
dv said:
sibeen said:
A pregnant teenager will be blocked from getting an abortion, a Florida court ruled on Monday.The 16-year-old initially petitioned to terminate her pregnancy, citing being a student and unemployed as reasons she is unprepared to have a baby.
A court ruled she was not mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion, blocking her from getting one.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/17/florida-pregnant-teenager-abortion-court
Damn
Wonder what would be their excuse if she dies during childbirth?
It’s God’s will.
sibeen said:
A pregnant teenager will be blocked from getting an abortion, a Florida court ruled on Monday.The 16-year-old initially petitioned to terminate her pregnancy, citing being a student and unemployed as reasons she is unprepared to have a baby.
A court ruled she was not mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion, blocking her from getting one.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/17/florida-pregnant-teenager-abortion-court
fark… so let’s take the opportunity to really understand what this means for the likely quality of life for both the mother and the baby. I wonder what will happen when the inevitable happens and this happens to the daughter of a high ranking politician in one of these states.
diddly-squat said:
sibeen said:
A pregnant teenager will be blocked from getting an abortion, a Florida court ruled on Monday.The 16-year-old initially petitioned to terminate her pregnancy, citing being a student and unemployed as reasons she is unprepared to have a baby.
A court ruled she was not mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion, blocking her from getting one.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/17/florida-pregnant-teenager-abortion-court
fark… so let’s take the opportunity to really understand what this means for the likely quality of life for both the mother and the baby. I wonder what will happen when the inevitable happens and this happens to the daughter of a high ranking politician in one of these states.
“you’re not mature enough to decide whether to have an abortion. Here, raise a baby!”
sibeen said:
A pregnant teenager will be blocked from getting an abortion, a Florida court ruled on Monday.The 16-year-old initially petitioned to terminate her pregnancy, citing being a student and unemployed as reasons she is unprepared to have a baby.
A court ruled she was not mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion, blocking her from getting one.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/17/florida-pregnant-teenager-abortion-court
Hence the baby will be born into a poverty-stricken, immature, one-parent family. Not much chance, hey.
Michael V said:
sibeen said:
A pregnant teenager will be blocked from getting an abortion, a Florida court ruled on Monday.
The 16-year-old initially petitioned to terminate her pregnancy, citing being a student and unemployed as reasons she is unprepared to have a baby.
A court ruled she was not mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion, blocking her from getting one.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/17/florida-pregnant-teenager-abortion-court
Hence the baby will be born into a poverty-stricken, immature, one-parent family. Not much chance, hey.
what, it’s perfect, we need more unthinking low paid labour to ensure that The Economy Must Grow, how else do you propose to fill the factories and the pockets of the privileged, import dirty foreigners who would steal those jobs¿ get real
dv said:
diddly-squat said:
sibeen said:
A pregnant teenager will be blocked from getting an abortion, a Florida court ruled on Monday.The 16-year-old initially petitioned to terminate her pregnancy, citing being a student and unemployed as reasons she is unprepared to have a baby.
A court ruled she was not mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion, blocking her from getting one.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/17/florida-pregnant-teenager-abortion-court
fark… so let’s take the opportunity to really understand what this means for the likely quality of life for both the mother and the baby. I wonder what will happen when the inevitable happens and this happens to the daughter of a high ranking politician in one of these states.
“you’re not mature enough to decide whether to have an abortion. Here, raise a baby!”
which, by the way, we will not help you do at all…”
Arts said:
dv said:
diddly-squat said:fark… so let’s take the opportunity to really understand what this means for the likely quality of life for both the mother and the baby. I wonder what will happen when the inevitable happens and this happens to the daughter of a high ranking politician in one of these states.
“you’re not mature enough to decide whether to have an abortion. Here, raise a baby!”
which, by the way, we will not help you do at all…”
Free dumb.
I am very sympathetic towards the people this change in law will affect, which, like most changes of this kind, disproportionately impact woman, people of colour and people in low socio-economic demographics.
What I hope happens is that this is used as a means to rally support around election of Democrats into, particularly, state legislatures. The Dems really do need to build their structures up from the grass roots to try and address some of the biases in the national electoral politic.
The aim should be to ultimately turn around the conservative imbalance in the SCOTUS over the next 2 to 3 decades.
Arts said:
dv said:
diddly-squat said:fark… so let’s take the opportunity to really understand what this means for the likely quality of life for both the mother and the baby. I wonder what will happen when the inevitable happens and this happens to the daughter of a high ranking politician in one of these states.
“you’re not mature enough to decide whether to have an abortion. Here, raise a baby!”
which, by the way, we will not help you do at all…”
It’s a post partum depression in the making. Possibly worse.
Bubblecar said:
Arts said:
dv said:“you’re not mature enough to decide whether to have an abortion. Here, raise a baby!”
which, by the way, we will not help you do at all…”
Free dumb.
don’t worry the hence or otherwise disaffected youth will then be Good Economic Agents and purchase lots of firearms and drugs so they can then go forth and massacre a few more snowflakes and so the cycle continues
diddly-squat said:
I am very sympathetic towards the people this change in law will affect, which, like most changes of this kind, disproportionately impact woman, people of colour and people in low socio-economic demographics.
What I hope happens is that this is used as a means to rally support around election of Democrats into, particularly, state legislatures. The Dems really do need to build their structures up from the grass roots to try and address some of the biases in the national electoral politic.
The aim should be to ultimately turn around the conservative imbalance in the SCOTUS over the next 2 to 3 decades.
I just hope the Democrats get 58 seats in the Senate which with 2 pro-choice Republicans would mean they could pass federal legislation to override state laws.
Witty Rejoinder said:
diddly-squat said:I am very sympathetic towards the people this change in law will affect, which, like most changes of this kind, disproportionately impact woman, people of colour and people in low socio-economic demographics.
What I hope happens is that this is used as a means to rally support around election of Democrats into, particularly, state legislatures. The Dems really do need to build their structures up from the grass roots to try and address some of the biases in the national electoral politic.
The aim should be to ultimately turn around the conservative imbalance in the SCOTUS over the next 2 to 3 decades.
I just hope the Democrats get 58 seats in the Senate which with 2 pro-choice Republicans would mean they could pass federal legislation to override state laws.
Joe Manchin is antiabortion so they’ll need 59
dv said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
diddly-squat said:I am very sympathetic towards the people this change in law will affect, which, like most changes of this kind, disproportionately impact woman, people of colour and people in low socio-economic demographics.
What I hope happens is that this is used as a means to rally support around election of Democrats into, particularly, state legislatures. The Dems really do need to build their structures up from the grass roots to try and address some of the biases in the national electoral politic.
The aim should be to ultimately turn around the conservative imbalance in the SCOTUS over the next 2 to 3 decades.
I just hope the Democrats get 58 seats in the Senate which with 2 pro-choice Republicans would mean they could pass federal legislation to override state laws.
Joe Manchin is antiabortion so they’ll need 59
shakes fist
Most of the new voter registrations since the decision to reverse RvW have been by women, with double digit gender gaps in Kansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Missouri, Colorada and Ohio.
dv said:
Most of the new voter registrations since the decision to reverse RvW have been by women, with double digit gender gaps in Kansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Missouri, Colorada and Ohio.
Good.
Witty Rejoinder said:
diddly-squat said:I am very sympathetic towards the people this change in law will affect, which, like most changes of this kind, disproportionately impact woman, people of colour and people in low socio-economic demographics.
What I hope happens is that this is used as a means to rally support around election of Democrats into, particularly, state legislatures. The Dems really do need to build their structures up from the grass roots to try and address some of the biases in the national electoral politic.
The aim should be to ultimately turn around the conservative imbalance in the SCOTUS over the next 2 to 3 decades.
I just hope the Democrats get 58 seats in the Senate which with 2 pro-choice Republicans would mean they could pass federal legislation to override state laws.
They need to concentrate on the states as a first point.. once they have the states they can gerrymander the fuck out of the House seats
diddly-squat said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
diddly-squat said:I am very sympathetic towards the people this change in law will affect, which, like most changes of this kind, disproportionately impact woman, people of colour and people in low socio-economic demographics.
What I hope happens is that this is used as a means to rally support around election of Democrats into, particularly, state legislatures. The Dems really do need to build their structures up from the grass roots to try and address some of the biases in the national electoral politic.
The aim should be to ultimately turn around the conservative imbalance in the SCOTUS over the next 2 to 3 decades.
I just hope the Democrats get 58 seats in the Senate which with 2 pro-choice Republicans would mean they could pass federal legislation to override state laws.
They need to concentrate on the states as a first point.. once they have the states they can gerrymander the fuck out of the House seats
I dunno. I think winning 9 more Senate seats is easier than winning control in red states. Quicker too and abortion rights might be the issue to make it happen.
Witty Rejoinder said:
diddly-squat said:
Witty Rejoinder said:I just hope the Democrats get 58 seats in the Senate which with 2 pro-choice Republicans would mean they could pass federal legislation to override state laws.
They need to concentrate on the states as a first point.. once they have the states they can gerrymander the fuck out of the House seats
I dunno. I think winning 9 more Senate seats is easier than winning control in red states. Quicker too and abortion rights might be the issue to make it happen.
The senate is a structural problem for the Dems.. it’s largely a function of demographics, so in order to address that they’ll have to send democratic voters out into the rural countryside…
diddly-squat said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
diddly-squat said:They need to concentrate on the states as a first point.. once they have the states they can gerrymander the fuck out of the House seats
I dunno. I think winning 9 more Senate seats is easier than winning control in red states. Quicker too and abortion rights might be the issue to make it happen.
The senate is a structural problem for the Dems.. it’s largely a function of demographics, so in order to address that they’ll have to send democratic voters out into the rural countryside…
The land of the tiny gene pool
Witty Rejoinder said:
diddly-squat said:
Witty Rejoinder said:I just hope the Democrats get 58 seats in the Senate which with 2 pro-choice Republicans would mean they could pass federal legislation to override state laws.
They need to concentrate on the states as a first point.. once they have the states they can gerrymander the fuck out of the House seats
I dunno. I think winning 9 more Senate seats is easier than winning control in red states. Quicker too and abortion rights might be the issue to make it happen.
They aren’t going to get to 59 this time round. Absolute best case scenario would be 54. A third of the Senate gets elected each time and they would probably need three solid Senate election performances in a row
America’s fight over abortions has fired up women voters
Republicans may regret politicising pregnancies
Aug 30th 2022
“This fall, Roe is on the ballot,” said President Joe Biden on June 24th, hours after America’s Supreme Court announced its decision to overturn Roe v Wade—in effect ending the constitutional right to abortion. Almost complete bans were automatically triggered in 11 states; severe restrictions came into force in several others. The Economist’s analysis of new voter registrations in 29 states suggests that many Americans have taken heed of the president’s call to action. In the two weeks after the decision the number of people registering to vote increased by 10%, with the number of new women voters far exceeding the number of men.
In the first four months of this year the share of women registering to vote hovered just below 50%. But this trend reversed after the leaking in early May of the Supreme Court’s draft decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organisation. This found that the United States constitution did not confer a right to abortion (in effect, overturning Roe). The percentage of women among those registering began to creep up, eventually peaking at 55.2% on June 30th, six days after the final decision. Comparing the two weeks before the leaked ruling with the two weeks after the judgement, the share of women electors increased in all but two of the states in our analysis: Oregon and Montana.
This trend was most pronounced in key battleground states for November’s midterm elections, and where the fight over abortion rights has been fiercest. Take Kansas. Abortion has been hotly debated in the state. And it will host a crucial vote in the midterms when Sharice Davids tries to hang on to Kansas’s only Democrat-held House district. The state has witnessed the greatest increase in women registering to vote, with their share growing by 19 percentage points between the fortnight before the leak and the fortnight after the final ruling. Other states facing both competitive races and debates over abortion include Arizona and Michigan, where the share of women registrants increased by ten and seven points respectively.
This may well help the Democrats come November. Women voters tend to be more left-leaning than men. Eighteen states have reported the political affiliations of the new names on their electoral rolls, and all but two (Alaska and Oregon) showed a boost for Democrats. Across all states where data was available, the share of Democrats grew by around four percentage points. In Pennsylvania, where the races for governor, senator and two house seats are likely to be tight, almost 5,000 more Democrats registered than Republicans in the two weeks following the decision. In 2020, Biden won in the state by a margin of just 80,500 votes. The Republican Party has wanted to overturn the right to abortion for decades. It may have some regrets come November.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/08/30/americas-fight-over-abortions-has-fired-up-women-voters?
captain_spalding said:
Cymek said:
sarahs mum said:
Asking a woman whether she’s had an abortion has not historically been a prerequisite for entry into the United States, but the US Customs and Border Patrol at Los Angeles airport told 32-year-old Australian Madolline Gourley that it was part of its “policy”.
She now wants the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) to update its travel advice for women of childbearing age heading to the US.
https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/10/05/australian-quizzed-abortion-us-border-dfat-travel-advice/
Just when you think they can’t get worse they do.
Smart traveller has been updated recently I seehttps://www.smartraveller.gov.au/destinations
United States of America Reconsider your need to travel 04 Oct 2022 (Third world medical treatment) (Numerous human rights violation) (Gun violence) (Religious extremism) (Inequality) (Invasive personal questioning at border control)
Why would you bother with it, when Canada is right next door?
wait there’s another thread for this kind of thing let us find it
Cymek said:
Peak Warming Man said:
Michael V said:
Crikey!
Unbelievable.
Supposedly they can demand access to phones, laptops, tablets, etc to check for copyright violation
give us a moment we’ll get there
SCIENCE said:
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
sarahs mum said:
Asking a woman whether she’s had an abortion has not historically been a prerequisite for entry into the United States, but the US Customs and Border Patrol at Los Angeles airport told 32-year-old Australian Madolline Gourley that it was part of its “policy”.
She now wants the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) to update its travel advice for women of childbearing age heading to the US.
https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/10/05/australian-quizzed-abortion-us-border-dfat-travel-advice/
But don’t you see?
The Land of the Free must protect itself from contamination by such women.
wait there’s another thread for this kind of thing let us find it
give us a moment we’ll get there
aha here it is
https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/topics/16250/
found it
Opinion Yet another lawsuit shows how abortion bans violate religious freedom
By Jennifer Rubin
Columnist
In July I wrote about a lawsuit in Florida challenging the state’s abortion ban on the grounds that it violates the religious beliefs of Jews — and members of other faiths — who do not believe in the Christian dogma that human life begins at conception. Now, three Jewish women from Kentucky have filed a similar suit.
One of the plaintiffs is undergoing in vitro fertilization. Another one is storing nine embryos. And another is “of advanced maternal age and faces many risk factors if she chooses to have a third child,” the complaint explains. It adds, “Individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry have a heightened risk of passing on genetic anomalies, like Tay-Sachs disease, for which there is no cure and the average life span of those with the condition is four years of age.”
Yet Kentucky’s abortion law, the complaint argues, would arguably make both an abortion after genetic counseling or the destruction of IVF embryos capital murder.
Contrary to the officiousness of the right-wing Supreme Court justices, who seem not to understand that they applied their own religious views in their ruling overturning abortion rights, the complaint explains:
Judaism has never defined life beginning at conception. Jewish views on the beginning of life originate in the Torah. … Millenia of commentary from Jewish scholars has reaffirmed Judaism’s commitment to reproductive rights.
Under Jewish law, a fetus does not become a human being or child until birth. Under no circumstances has Jewish law defined a human being or child as the moment that a human spermatozoon fuses with a human ovum.
The question of when life begins for a human being is a religious and philosophical question without universal beliefs across different religions.
The last sentence is key. The so-called state interest in preserving “fetal life” depends on the assumption that a fetus deserves the same protection as a toddler. But for Jews, “the necessity of protecting birth givers in the event a pregnancy endangers the woman’s life and causes the mother physical and mental harm” must control. Moreover, “the law forces Plaintiffs to spend exorbitant fees to keep their embryos frozen indefinitely or face potential felony charges.”
For that reason, the complaint alleges that the Kentucky abortion law violates the First Amendment and the state constitutional protection for religious freedom — as well as the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The latter part of the lawsuit may become moot should Kentucky voters pass a ballot measure that would declare the state constitution does not protect abortion access. But, in any case, forcing others to comply with the religious-based edicts of one sect flies in the face of the constitutional guarantee of free religious expression.
The complaint also alleges that the Kentucky law should be void for vagueness under the 5th and 14th Amendments. As with so many laws triggered by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that predate modern medicine, it’s not clear whether the law requires preservation of the embryos. Moreover, the complaint argues, Kentucky’s abortion law “does not impose clear standards, rules, or regulations regarding the potential experiences of potential birth givers with regards to their access to reproductive technology.”
Regardless of whether the lawsuit succeeds, it raises three critical issues that apply in legal challenges to abortion bans. First, it pulls back the curtain to reveal that judges are acting on a religious, not scientific, view of personhood. The arrogance in assuming that everyone buys into a specific Christian sectarian viewpoint reveals the degree to which right-wing courts and legislatures ignore or disfavor Americans who are not Christian. It’s critical to force politicians, media, pundits, doctors, researchers and ordinary voters to recognize this.
Second, the lawsuit makes clear the negative impact on IVF, which was not in existence when many state abortion bans were passed in the 19th or early 20th century. The current crop of state lawmakers and Supreme Court justices seems willfully oblivious to the implications for such reproductive care. Do they really want to make a commonly used process for procreation effectively impossible?
Finally, it’s not just the Kentucky law that is vague to the point of unintelligibility. Many state statutes use vague, nonmedical terms to put doctors and patients in untenable positions. Should physicians render care to a pregnant woman experiencing a dangerous pregnancy, risking prosecution under the opaque language of a 19th-century law, or should they let the patient’s condition become so acute that she might fit within an exception for preservation of her life? The uncertainty these laws have imposed seems designed to chill the willingness of doctors to provide care, even if it turns out to be legal.
If the Kentucky lawsuit forces state legislators to wrestle with the real harm and chaos these laws have created, then it will be a success. Good thing that there is an election less than a month away.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/09/kentucky-abortion-lawsuit-jewish-religious-freedom/?
I just finished watching the new film about Marilyn Monroe, Blonde.
The visual impact is mostly interesting, but the pregnancy/abortion sections are seriously dreadful. So off that many supporters of pro-choice are pissed off.
“If you have not watched the Netflix project yet, there is a scene in the second half of the film — which has notably been marketed as a feminist take on Marilyn Monroe — in which the star (played by Ana de Armas) speaks to her fetus early on in a pregnancy. “You won’t hurt me this time, will you? Not what you did the last time?” the fetus asks in the voice of a young child, referencing two of Monroe’s previous pregnancies and forced abortions shown in the film. The audience then sees inside Monroe’s uterus, where a full-grown baby resides (despite her not even showing yet). “I didn’t mean to,” Monroe says. “Yes, you meant to. It was your decision,” the fetus responds. Monroe ends up losing the baby soon after, which researcher Steph Herold, who studies how abortion is portrayed onscreen, said comes across as “implied punishment for the abortion” Monroe previously had.”
https://www.thecut.com/2022/10/planned-parenthood-calls-blonde-anti-abortion-propaganda.html
kii said:
I just finished watching the new film about Marilyn Monroe, Blonde.The visual impact is mostly interesting, but the pregnancy/abortion sections are seriously dreadful. So off that many supporters of pro-choice are pissed off.
“If you have not watched the Netflix project yet, there is a scene in the second half of the film — which has notably been marketed as a feminist take on Marilyn Monroe — in which the star (played by Ana de Armas) speaks to her fetus early on in a pregnancy. “You won’t hurt me this time, will you? Not what you did the last time?” the fetus asks in the voice of a young child, referencing two of Monroe’s previous pregnancies and forced abortions shown in the film. The audience then sees inside Monroe’s uterus, where a full-grown baby resides (despite her not even showing yet). “I didn’t mean to,” Monroe says. “Yes, you meant to. It was your decision,” the fetus responds. Monroe ends up losing the baby soon after, which researcher Steph Herold, who studies how abortion is portrayed onscreen, said comes across as “implied punishment for the abortion” Monroe previously had.”
https://www.thecut.com/2022/10/planned-parenthood-calls-blonde-anti-abortion-propaganda.html
good grief.
ChrispenEvan said:
kii said:
I just finished watching the new film about Marilyn Monroe, Blonde.The visual impact is mostly interesting, but the pregnancy/abortion sections are seriously dreadful. So off that many supporters of pro-choice are pissed off.
“If you have not watched the Netflix project yet, there is a scene in the second half of the film — which has notably been marketed as a feminist take on Marilyn Monroe — in which the star (played by Ana de Armas) speaks to her fetus early on in a pregnancy. “You won’t hurt me this time, will you? Not what you did the last time?” the fetus asks in the voice of a young child, referencing two of Monroe’s previous pregnancies and forced abortions shown in the film. The audience then sees inside Monroe’s uterus, where a full-grown baby resides (despite her not even showing yet). “I didn’t mean to,” Monroe says. “Yes, you meant to. It was your decision,” the fetus responds. Monroe ends up losing the baby soon after, which researcher Steph Herold, who studies how abortion is portrayed onscreen, said comes across as “implied punishment for the abortion” Monroe previously had.”
https://www.thecut.com/2022/10/planned-parenthood-calls-blonde-anti-abortion-propaganda.html
good grief.
Yes, good grief, that’s a mild version of what I often say about the stupidity surrounding the anti-choice crowd.
I know local women who say things like: keep your legs closed and you won’t have to worry about pregnancy. Both her daughters (now adults and parents themselves) were sexually abused by one of her previous husbands. Or one woman saying casually to me that her daughter had a miscarriage as punishment for thinking about terminating a pregnancy that she ended up carrying to term.
I hate this so much.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Opinion Yet another lawsuit shows how abortion bans violate religious freedomBy Jennifer Rubin
ColumnistIn July I wrote about a lawsuit in Florida challenging the state’s abortion ban on the grounds that it violates the religious beliefs of Jews — and members of other faiths — who do not believe in the Christian dogma that human life begins at conception. Now, three Jewish women from Kentucky have filed a similar suit.
One of the plaintiffs is undergoing in vitro fertilization. Another one is storing nine embryos. And another is “of advanced maternal age and faces many risk factors if she chooses to have a third child,” the complaint explains. It adds, “Individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry have a heightened risk of passing on genetic anomalies, like Tay-Sachs disease, for which there is no cure and the average life span of those with the condition is four years of age.”
Yet Kentucky’s abortion law, the complaint argues, would arguably make both an abortion after genetic counseling or the destruction of IVF embryos capital murder.
Contrary to the officiousness of the right-wing Supreme Court justices, who seem not to understand that they applied their own religious views in their ruling overturning abortion rights, the complaint explains:
Judaism has never defined life beginning at conception. Jewish views on the beginning of life originate in the Torah. … Millenia of commentary from Jewish scholars has reaffirmed Judaism’s commitment to reproductive rights.
Under Jewish law, a fetus does not become a human being or child until birth. Under no circumstances has Jewish law defined a human being or child as the moment that a human spermatozoon fuses with a human ovum.
The question of when life begins for a human being is a religious and philosophical question without universal beliefs across different religions.
The last sentence is key. The so-called state interest in preserving “fetal life” depends on the assumption that a fetus deserves the same protection as a toddler. But for Jews, “the necessity of protecting birth givers in the event a pregnancy endangers the woman’s life and causes the mother physical and mental harm” must control. Moreover, “the law forces Plaintiffs to spend exorbitant fees to keep their embryos frozen indefinitely or face potential felony charges.”
For that reason, the complaint alleges that the Kentucky abortion law violates the First Amendment and the state constitutional protection for religious freedom — as well as the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The latter part of the lawsuit may become moot should Kentucky voters pass a ballot measure that would declare the state constitution does not protect abortion access. But, in any case, forcing others to comply with the religious-based edicts of one sect flies in the face of the constitutional guarantee of free religious expression.
The complaint also alleges that the Kentucky law should be void for vagueness under the 5th and 14th Amendments. As with so many laws triggered by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that predate modern medicine, it’s not clear whether the law requires preservation of the embryos. Moreover, the complaint argues, Kentucky’s abortion law “does not impose clear standards, rules, or regulations regarding the potential experiences of potential birth givers with regards to their access to reproductive technology.”
Regardless of whether the lawsuit succeeds, it raises three critical issues that apply in legal challenges to abortion bans. First, it pulls back the curtain to reveal that judges are acting on a religious, not scientific, view of personhood. The arrogance in assuming that everyone buys into a specific Christian sectarian viewpoint reveals the degree to which right-wing courts and legislatures ignore or disfavor Americans who are not Christian. It’s critical to force politicians, media, pundits, doctors, researchers and ordinary voters to recognize this.
Second, the lawsuit makes clear the negative impact on IVF, which was not in existence when many state abortion bans were passed in the 19th or early 20th century. The current crop of state lawmakers and Supreme Court justices seems willfully oblivious to the implications for such reproductive care. Do they really want to make a commonly used process for procreation effectively impossible?
Finally, it’s not just the Kentucky law that is vague to the point of unintelligibility. Many state statutes use vague, nonmedical terms to put doctors and patients in untenable positions. Should physicians render care to a pregnant woman experiencing a dangerous pregnancy, risking prosecution under the opaque language of a 19th-century law, or should they let the patient’s condition become so acute that she might fit within an exception for preservation of her life? The uncertainty these laws have imposed seems designed to chill the willingness of doctors to provide care, even if it turns out to be legal.
If the Kentucky lawsuit forces state legislators to wrestle with the real harm and chaos these laws have created, then it will be a success. Good thing that there is an election less than a month away.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/09/kentucky-abortion-lawsuit-jewish-religious-freedom/?
I didn’t know about the impact on IVF.
buffy said:
I didn’t know about the impact on IVF.
I’m waiting for these mongrels to backdate the laws to cover abortions done in previous years and/or countries.
kii said:
I just finished watching the new film about Marilyn Monroe, Blonde.The visual impact is mostly interesting, but the pregnancy/abortion sections are seriously dreadful. So off that many supporters of pro-choice are pissed off.
“If you have not watched the Netflix project yet, there is a scene in the second half of the film — which has notably been marketed as a feminist take on Marilyn Monroe — in which the star (played by Ana de Armas) speaks to her fetus early on in a pregnancy. “You won’t hurt me this time, will you? Not what you did the last time?” the fetus asks in the voice of a young child, referencing two of Monroe’s previous pregnancies and forced abortions shown in the film. The audience then sees inside Monroe’s uterus, where a full-grown baby resides (despite her not even showing yet). “I didn’t mean to,” Monroe says. “Yes, you meant to. It was your decision,” the fetus responds. Monroe ends up losing the baby soon after, which researcher Steph Herold, who studies how abortion is portrayed onscreen, said comes across as “implied punishment for the abortion” Monroe previously had.”
https://www.thecut.com/2022/10/planned-parenthood-calls-blonde-anti-abortion-propaganda.html
That’s another film I won’t be watching then.
The Rev Dodgson said:
kii said:
I just finished watching the new film about Marilyn Monroe, Blonde.
The visual impact is mostly interesting, but the pregnancy/abortion sections are seriously dreadful. So off that many supporters of pro-choice are pissed off.
“If you have not watched the Netflix project yet, there is a scene in the second half of the film — which has notably been marketed as a feminist take on Marilyn Monroe — in which the star (played by Ana de Armas) speaks to her fetus early on in a pregnancy. “You won’t hurt me this time, will you? Not what you did the last time?” the fetus asks in the voice of a young child, referencing two of Monroe’s previous pregnancies and forced abortions shown in the film. The audience then sees inside Monroe’s uterus, where a full-grown baby resides (despite her not even showing yet). “I didn’t mean to,” Monroe says. “Yes, you meant to. It was your decision,” the fetus responds. Monroe ends up losing the baby soon after, which researcher Steph Herold, who studies how abortion is portrayed onscreen, said comes across as “implied punishment for the abortion” Monroe previously had.”
https://www.thecut.com/2022/10/planned-parenthood-calls-blonde-anti-abortion-propaganda.html
That’s another film I won’t be watching then.
who are these people it’s about anyway
in theocratic Ira… rna… DPRNA
SCIENCE said:
in theocratic Ira… rna… DPRNA
What a shithole country.
roughbarked said:
SCIENCE said:
in theocratic Ira… rna… DPRNA
What a shithole country.
¡ at least it’s God’s shithole !
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uN-6_WeOJns
it continues
The Students Quietly Distributing Emergency Birth Control on Campus
Emergency contraception can be tough to find at some colleges. So students have taken matters into their own hands.
By Mattie Kahn
Nov. 30 at 5:56 p.m.
The pink pouches are sealed with stickers, cheerful as gift bags. Inside: no branded merchandise or flavored lip balms. Instead, the quasi-favors are stuffed with pills. The people who pack them — who source the pills, who keep the spreadsheet tracking their disbursal, who organize the confidential handoffs — chose these pouches in part because of their saturation. The wash of pink obscures the contents. It’s no one’s business who’s taking Plan B on campus.
That’s the operating principle of a student-led effort at Loyola University Chicago called EZ EC, which makes the morning-after pill available to whoever wants it, whenever. No explanations, no prescription, no lectures. Volunteers with EZ EC — founded last year — deliver four to five orders of the morning-after pill per week. Last semester, organizers completed 70 handoffs. It might sound improbable that an organization like EZ EC operates on a Jesuit campus. But Andi Beaudouin, who helped launch it, sees its success as a simple matter of fact: “It’s like, if universities aren’t going to do it, we have to. Because students deserve it.”
A planning meeting of EZ EC, a peer-to-peer birth-control distribution network based at Loyola University Chicago. Andi Beaudouin, who helped launch the group, Zoomed into the meeting. (Photo courtesy of Andi Beaudouin)
From Texas to South Carolina to California to Illinois, students on at least a dozen campuses have built ad hoc fulfillment centers like EZ EC to provide Plan B to their peers, circumventing both pharmacies and traditional student health centers. In the process, as access to other reproductive services has been rolled back nationwide, the peer-to-peer distribution networks — part of a loose national federation called EC4EC (Emergency Contraception for Every Campus) — have modeled a radical approach to care in an era in desperate need of new tactics.
Within a matter of hours after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, the United States — which had long been a patchwork of uneven abortion law — became even more dangerous for pregnant people. The same week that the court announced its decision, sales of morning-after pills like Plan B surged. One company reported that demand for its form of the contraceptive had tripled.
The reasons for the run varied. Some people wanted to secure boxes to ensure a pipeline of pills for their adolescent and college-aged children. Some ordered the pill out of a desire to reassert control over their own reproduction. Some worried that the medication would soon become a legal target after Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that perhaps it wasn’t just Roe that needed to be reviewed, but also cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, which sanctioned birth control for married couples and was later used as the basis for its more widespread legalization.
Whatever the precise explanation for the sudden sales, it was about to become much harder to obtain a legal abortion. The morning-after pill — designed for the kind of emergencies the name indicates — was suited to the moment. The all-volunteer staff of EZ EC felt it too: the scramble, the fear. “When the Dobbs decision came out, we all got together and cried,” Beaudouin, now 20 and a junior, tells me. “It was during finals week; it was terrible.” Amid that collective mourning, their Instagram account filled with direct messages from terrified students.
In the three hours after the decision was released, Beaudouin and their friends raged and commiserated, and debated what to write in a statement to post on Instagram. Then the shock settled, and students affiliated with Students for Reproductive Justice — the umbrella organization at Loyola that advocates for access to contraception on campus — considered what people needed to hear from them. “We as SRJ stand with our fellow students and will continue to be a resource for contraceptives and education,” the eventual statement read. It went on to frame its conviction in terms that the university administration could perhaps understand: “An essential Jesuit Value is Cura Personalis, care for the whole person, which must include respect for reproductive freedom.” The work that EZ EC does has been subversive from the start, in defiance of the bigger and more powerful institution whose students it serves. That work would continue. In the wake of Dobbs, and bolstered by their Instagram declaration, Beauduoin recalled, “We felt more concrete in our roles as providers.”
EC4EC was dreamed up more as a tool kit than a movement. It was meant to answer the deluge of questions that Kelly Cleland — who runs the nonprofit American Society for Emergency Contraception, which advocates for access and coordinates collaboration between advocates and providers — started to receive around 2017, when national news outlets began picking up local stories about a wave of college campuses installing vending machines that dispensed Plan B. Cleland is a researcher at heart, having spent over a decade in the Office of Population Research at Princeton University. She has long studied the persistent barriers that can keep people from getting their hands on birth control, and so the trend interested her. She wondered whether she could get more involved.
To outsiders, the vending machines sounded like a gimmick. But Cleland knew better. While Plan B and its ilk have been sold over the counter without age restrictions since 2013, students have continued to report obstacles to acquiring them. The medication costs too much. Or the pharmacies near them have failed to maintain a reliable stock. Some cashiers still don’t know or care to abide by the rules that require them to sell the pills without asking for ID.
Vending machines — which students the world over know how to use — presented a new and appealing point of sale, solving several problems at once. Unlike most bricks-and-mortar businesses or student health centers, vending machines are open 24/7. Most address cost too, stocking generic medications like one called AfterPill for far less than the name-brand equivalent.
On the West Coast, undergraduates at a spate of universities, including Stanford, petitioned for the machines to be installed, and succeeded within months. Others followed suit. Young people had to seek approval from their administration and spearhead the fundraising required both to procure the machine and to bulk-order contraception. Student leaders had to coordinate with the facilities departments that keep vending machines stocked on a given campus to ensure that the medication was available. But once a machine was operational and the matter of who needed to refill it was settled, it could operate without much oversight.
Cleland and Nicola Brogan, a nurse who works as a project manager at the American Society for Emergency Contraception, wanted to be able to advise students interested in landing a vending machine on their campus. It seemed to both like the future of access: birth control, sandwiched between foil packets of Advil and Gatorade.
It was a nice idea until students from Catholic and evangelical schools wrote to Cleland, pointing out that their colleges would never sanction the sale of contraception on campus. “We realized there’s a lot of places where there’s never going to be that vending machine,” she told me.
And so, while Cleland and Brogan continued to champion vending machines at amenable universities, the pair formulated a lower-tech alternative: a peer-to-peer distribution network, built on the hunch that students would trust their peers to provide them with the pills at low or no cost. Cleland reasoned that a human infrastructure could be established and maintained, even though students are transient presences on college campuses. The approach would be resilient, able to withstand changing attitudes in an administration. It was simple, too — faster to get up and running than a vending machine. And it was less sensitive to legal judgments. Vending machines required permits and approvals. No one has to sign off on the creation of an off-campus association.
Cleland and Brogan consulted legal experts, who explained that as long as medication was stored at an appropriate temperature and not given out past its expiration date, students could not be found liable for handing it out. Deans could avert their gaze if it offended them. No law prevented the practice.
In 2020, Cleland and Brogan unveiled EC4EC. The two drew up a list of items to include in starter kits. Brogan consulted with millennial and Gen Z activists. She and Cleland assembled a board of recent graduates from a range of colleges and universities who could advise participants. Cleland waited for calls. Beaudouin was soon on the other end of the line.
When Andi Beaudouin embarked on their first fall semester at Loyola in Chicago, the pandemic was in full swing. It was 2020 and classes were online. Opportunities to meet fellow students were slim. But Beaudouin lived in the area and so heard about a beloved event that Students for Reproductive Justice puts on once a week. Volunteers meet on a corner, just past the boundaries of campus, and hand out condoms to passing students. The vibe is sex-ed-meets-celebration. Intrigued, Beaudouin attended an SRJ meeting and received a more comprehensive sex education presentation than high school had ever attempted. “I was like, ‘Wow, this is so sad that I’ve never had this before,’ ” Beaudouin recalls. They joined on the spot.
In 2021, someone raised the issue of the morning-after pill in a meeting. Previous student leaders had wanted to distribute it, but momentum had stalled, and setting up a structure to do it had proved daunting. Someone needed to lead the effort. Beaudouin looked around and saw no takers. “I was like, ‘I’ll do it.’ ”
Beaudouin reached out to Cleland, who explained what it would take to initiate the program. From there, Beaudouin enlisted a team of committee members who enrolled in language-training courses to be as sensitive as possible about distribution; composed scripts for all communication with recipients so as not to overstep legal boundaries; and developed a protocol for stocking supplies, answering queries and executing deliveries. Cleland sent them a starter kit, complete with several boxes of Plan B to prepare for the launch.
“Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.”
— Justice William O. Douglas, majority, Griswold v. Connecticut
Each committee member has designated tasks, such as wrangling spreadsheets or managing social media. Some work is shared: Windows for deliveries are divvied up; the entire committee monitors the inbox where requests come in. After a recipient has verified that she’s read the resource guide and that the medication will be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, EZ EC orchestrates a handoff via a Google Voice number. EZ EC — like the other chapters that are part of EC4EC — does not charge for pills, which can retail for $25 to $50. It gets them at a discount and can place bulk orders through a deal with one of the generic makers. Its leaders tell me that most recipients choose to make the suggested donation of $8 to cover the cost that EZ EC incurs for each dose it receives from its wholesale supplier. SRJ organizes an annual fundraiser to cover the rest.
The process is not much more complicated than getting Domino’s delivered. But it is a far more profound experience. This generation of students has been raised in a world of crises so existential that even beginning to address them can feel impossible. When EZ EC organizer Skylar Kanine volunteered to do this work, the scale was part of the appeal. It has made her feel like she can make an actual difference in the lives of people she knows. She mentions the 70 orders from last semester and marvels: 70 people. “It feels so good to feel like I’m doing something,” she says.
Members of Loyola University’s Students for Reproductive Justice group at a condom giveaway. Because condom distribution is not allowed on Loyola grounds, the volunteers gather just off campus. (Photo courtesy of Andi Beaudouin)
The members of EZ EC relish the impact, but the tone and protocols of the organization are borderline prosaic. Beaudouin believes getting basic health care shouldn’t have to be dramatic. To that end, SRJ has a saved Instagram highlight that explains how to place an order with EZ EC. Most users stick to the basics and provide just the required information; they are appreciative without being confessional. “A lot of the girls who order EC from us — it’s like we give them an example in the demo of what to tell us, and people will just have that text copied and pasted,” Beaudouin reports. “We’re like, ‘Cool,’ and we move on. It’s nice that people don’t feel the need to overshare.” (If there’s an exception to that rule, it tends to come from male partners. Beaudouin laughs, recalling their earnest notes: “It’s hilarious and so endearing. I’m just like, ‘Thanks for this very graphic description of your intercourse. Yes, I can give you EC.’ ”)
Once, a student who had been enrolled at Beaudouin’s high school reached out, requesting that Beaudouin be the one to drop off the medication. “We’d never gotten a request for a specific person before,” Beaudouin remembers. “I recognized the name, but I wasn’t sure. I handed it off to her, and she was like, ‘I was just afraid that someone else would judge me for this. You’re the person I felt comfortable with.’ ” The girl was new to college. She hadn’t known whom else to ask.
For Cleland and Brogan and Beaudouin and Kanine, trusted networks are the future of reproductive care, whatever the legal status of abortion and birth control: Whether it’s coalitions of students or doctors or pharmacists or activists, it will fall to grass-roots efforts to shore up access. That means taking risks now before the legal status of birth control is further jeopardized.
In a paper published on its website in June 2022, the National Women’s Law Center outlined threats to birth control. The paper stated that attempts to legislate birth control would increase after the Dobbs decision — and Justice Thomas’s accompanying invitation to reconsider Griswold — but stressed that legal challenges were not new. Antiabortion politicians demonized birth control long before Roe was overturned. Their work relied on a favored bit of misinformation: the claim that some forms of birth control, the morning-after pill notable among them, work to induce abortion and must therefore be restricted.
“It is a prime target,” explains Mara Gandal-Powers, the director of birth control access and senior counsel for reproductive rights and health at the women’s law center. “We see folks conflating birth control with abortion, and EC is on the front lines of that.”
“It is the essence of judicial duty to subordinate our own personal views, our own ideas of what legislation is wise and what is not. If, as I should surely hope, the law before us does not reflect the standards of the people of Connecticut, the people of Connecticut can … persuade their elected representatives to repeal it. That is the constitutional way to take this law off the books.”
— Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting, Griswold v. Connecticut
To be clear: The morning-after pill works as a contraceptive because it releases a flood of hormones that staves off ovulation. Without ovulation, fertilization cannot occur. Plan B almost certainly does not — counter to some outdated label information that advocates have begged the Food and Drug Administration to correct — prevent the attachment of a fertilized egg to the uterus. Legal experts like Gandal-Powers believe it should be permissible even in states that have enacted the most extreme “fetal personhood” laws, although she points out too that no one requires the law to bow to science.
For now, birth control is legal. Gandal-Powers isn’t sure if that will remain true. Skeptics can claim fearmongering, but those who wish to see contraception banned have gotten to work. In Idaho, the general counsel for the state’s public university issued guidance that suggested its campuses should stop offering birth control for students and warned staff that speaking in support of abortion could invite prosecution. The guidance identified the “unclear and untested” nature of the antiabortion trigger law that took effect in Idaho in August to explain its “conservative approach.” Later, officials revised the memo and said that birth control would continue to be offered on campus, but the flip-flop did not inspire confidence.
Cleland keeps tabs on state laws that could affect her contacts. The Idaho guidance seized her attention. She wanted to know how the rule would be applied to students. Could they hand out contraception even if staff were barred from doing so? The walked-back guidance doesn’t spell it out. “We don’t know,” Cleland admits. “The last thing we want to do is put students at risk, but I think a lot of them are willing to put themselves out there.” She and Brogan serve as sounding boards for the people who lead EC4EC chapters, but in the end, it is up to the students to set their own boundaries — and to take their own chances. So it was in the pre-Roe era, when college students helped found the underground abortion service that would come to be known as Jane. So it will be now, if access to birth control is further curtailed.
In the meantime, women consider their options. After Donald Trump was elected in 2016, interest in intrauterine devices — better known as IUDs — spiked. A journal article later published in JAMA found that in the month after that race was called, insurance claims for IUDs — which can be implanted for up to a decade as a semi-permanent contraceptive — rose more than 21 percent among women with commercial insurance. Doctors have reported a similar swell now. Over the summer, Democrats introduced legislation that would have protected access to contraception at the federal level. A handful of Republicans voted with House Democrats, but more backed a GOP countermeasure that would have allowed people over 18 to access FDA-approved birth control without a prescription, while excluding drugs like Plan B. Democrats swatted it down, and the debate in Washington continues. Yet the truth is apparent not just to people like Beaudouin, but in the market: Undergraduates will continue to need access, no matter how the law shakes out.
In September, a new morning-after pill hit the shelves in all 4,500 Walmart stores nationwide. (It’s also available online.) Julie — which was designed to appeal to Gen Z users and shrug off the stigma of traditional morning-after pills — isn’t a steal at $42. But for each box sold, one is donated to brand partners, including college-campus organizations.
The EC4EC network continues to grow. Brogan estimates that she and Cleland have been in touch with students on over 60 campuses. At least a dozen are working with her consistently. Student leaders have grand plans for what comes next. Kanine wants SRJ to start offering free testing for sexually transmitted infections on campus. And, though she concedes it would be a logistical nightmare, she would like to see EZ EC explore whether it can make medication abortion available to students too.
Beaudouin is thinking ahead — to their graduation in December 2023 and past that. “It makes me sad,” Beaudouin says. “I don’t want to let go of it, but I’m going to have to.” The next micro-generation of leaders will have to put their own stamp on the project. “It’s bittersweet,” Beaudouin continues. “It’s just like, ‘Oh, I don’t want to lose this.’ ”
Kanine will graduate six months later. She plans to continue working in the reproductive-justice space. It’s inconceivable that, after all this, she would do something else. But she is determined to train the new EZ EC organizers before she goes: “We want to build a strong foundation because campus officials and admin keep thinking we’ll disappear. And we haven’t because we keep bringing people up and lining them up to succeed us. That’s the strongest thing we do. We’re still here.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/interactive/2022/birth-control-distribution-ec4ec/?
Damn these conservative fundamentalist Middle Eastern nations
“WE’RE GOING TO WHERE THE FIGHT IS”: ABORTION RIGHTS MOVEMENT SETS ITS SIGHTS ON KEY STATES
Seven months after the fall of Roe, the battlefield has shifted.
Jordan Smith
January 21 2023, 11:00 p.m.
RACHEL O’LEARY CARMONA was stunned by the traffic. She was in a car with a friend heading from New York to Washington, D.C., the day after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, to participate in the Women’s March.
Her friend said the gridlock was probably because of the march. Carmona was skeptical. But when they stopped in Delaware for gas, she was surprised to see throngs of women asking people to sign petitions. “This is something completely different,” Carmona remembers thinking. Mobilized by Trump’s election, millions of people marched that Saturday in cities across the country. A year later, Carmona joined the Women’s March organization, where she now serves as executive director.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s June decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and decimated nearly 50 years of abortion rights, Carmona anticipates another strong showing for this year’s march. It is slated for January 22, the anniversary of the court’s 1973 ruling in Roe. But instead of Washington, D.C., this year, the main event will be held in Madison, Wisconsin. “We wanted to send a clear message to elected leaders, to our base, to the people that we’re going to where the fight is,” Carmona said. “And that’s at the state level.”
The fight to protect reproductive rights has largely shifted to the states. While the Supreme Court has determined that the U.S. Constitution provides no guarantee of reproductive freedom, that document is hardly the final say. The U.S. Constitution is the floor, not the ceiling — a baseline guarantee of rights afforded to the people — and many state constitutions provide much broader protections.
With this shift there’s a lot on the line for reproductive rights, including in Wisconsin, where a suit challenging the validity of an 1849 abortion ban is winding its way through the courts. This spring, voters will decide whether the state’s Supreme Court — final arbiters of the Wisconsin Constitution — will flip to provide a 4-3 liberal majority. “We have a lot of infrastructure in Wisconsin, and so we … have the ability to make an impact there,” Carmona said. “We have a mandate to do so.”
State of Play
Since Dobbs, 12 states have banned abortion entirely (save for some exceptions that exist in name only), and state court challenges to those bans are pending in Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and West Virginia, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Abortion is unavailable in two states: North Dakota, which saw its sole clinic moved to Minnesota, and Wisconsin, where clinics stopped providing care while the legality of the pre-Roe ban is in limbo. Four states — Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Utah — currently allow abortion with gestational limits, ranging from six weeks in Georgia to 18 weeks in Utah. In Indiana, Ohio, and Wyoming, lawmakers have passed draconian bans on care that have been blocked by state courts pending litigation.
Since June, the state of play has been in near constant flux; earlier this month, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution contained no right to abortion, just hours after the South Carolina Supreme Court found the opposite true of its constitution. In a fiery opinion, Justice Kaye Hearn (only the second woman to serve on the South Carolina court) struck down a six-week abortion ban on the grounds that it violated the constitution’s explicit right to privacy. “We hold that the decision to terminate a pregnancy rests upon the utmost personal and private considerations imaginable, and implicates a woman’s right to privacy,” she wrote.
“At the risk of stating the obvious, in order for a choice to be informed, a woman must know she is pregnant.”
Hearn noted that in passing the restriction, lawmakers discussed the importance of making an informed choice about having an abortion — a professed desire laughable in the face of a six-week ban. Most people don’t even realize they’re pregnant at six weeks, Hearn wrote. “At the risk of stating the obvious, in order for a choice to be informed, a woman must know she is pregnant.”
While the Idaho Supreme Court found that there was no protection for abortion in the state’s constitution, it noted that voters had the power to change that — by electing new legislators or amending the constitution. Voters in California, Michigan, and Vermont did just that last year, enshrining constitutional protection for reproductive freedom. Voters in Kansas and Kentucky defeated amendments that would have stripped their constitutions of such protections.
The state ballot successes have inspired plans for initiatives in other states, including Missouri and Ohio. In response, Republican lawmakers have sought to make it harder to get citizen-led initiatives on the ballot. “Those lawmakers know their ideological views are out of sync with their voters,” Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project, told The Guardian. “They are trying to change the rules of the game.”
Unprecedented Times
Although the destruction of Roe motivated voters in November’s midterm elections, turning an anticipated “red wave” into a mere trickle, Republicans in Congress seem to have zero desire to read the room. Once House Republicans finally managed to elect a speaker, they passed two largely symbolic attacks on abortion: a resolution condemning attacks on churches and anti-abortion “crisis pregnancy centers,” despite the fact that threats of violence targeting actual abortion providers have skyrocketed, and a measure that would create new criminal penalties for doctors who fail to provide specific care to a child “born alive” after an attempted abortion, which, it should be said, is rhetoric divorced from medical reality.
“The offensively named ‘born-alive’ legislation is another cruel and misguided attempt to interfere with evidence-based medical decision making between parents and their physicians,” Iffath Abbasi Hoskins, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said of the bill. “It is meant to incite emotions.”
But there is no doubt that anti-abortion lawmakers in states around the country will follow suit. The Texas legislature, which only meets every other year, has teed up a slate of anti-abortion measures — including a strategy for punishing people who travel out of state for care. In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin, thought to have 2024 presidential ambitions, has pushed for a 15-week abortion ban and said he would “gleefully” sign any anti-abortion measure that lands on his desk. A special election this month to fill a state Senate seat vacated by a Republican was seen as a referendum on Youngkin’s glee; on January 10, voters flipped the seat, electing Democrat Aaron Rouse, who ran on an abortion rights platform. The election has strengthened the state Senate’s Democratic majority, making it unlikely that Youngkin’s anti-abortion priorities will go anywhere anytime soon.
In recent weeks, the Biden administration has taken steps to blunt the impact of some anti-abortion legislation. In December, the Food and Drug Administration announced labeling changes for emergency contraceptives, making clear that they do not induce abortion (long an anti-science talking point of the anti-abortion crowd). Weeks later, the FDA announced regulatory changes that would allow retail pharmacies to dispense medication abortion pills — a move that could significantly expand access ahead of attempts to restrict its availability. Medication abortion, available in the earliest weeks of pregnancy, now accounts for more than half of all abortions in the U.S. The Department of Justice also issued an advisory opinion to the U.S. Postal Service announcing that a prudish federal law initially enacted in 1873 did not prohibit sending medication abortion pills through the mail, even to people in states that have banned abortion.
Lawmakers elsewhere are moving to enact greater protections for reproductive autonomy. Earlier this month, the Illinois Legislature passed an omnibus bill to expand and protect access to care, which has since been signed into law. The state has become a haven in a vast abortion desert; according to Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, which operates an abortion clinic in Illinois just over the Missouri state line, the law couldn’t come a minute too soon. Since Roe fell, wait times for care in Southern Illinois have jumped from three or four days to two-and-a-half weeks. There’s been a nearly 80 percent increase in abortion patients — and a more than 300 percent increase in the number of patients coming from outside Missouri or Illinois.
“Providers and patients are navigating unprecedented times,” Southern Illinois abortion providers said in a joint statement prior to the bill’s passage, encouraging lawmakers to act swiftly. “What we once hypothetically planned for has now become our reality, and the impact and burden abortion bans have on providers and patients is a public health crisis that affects all Illinoisans.”
Bigger Than Roe
In recent years, Wisconsin has been ground zero for conservative activism, fund in no small part by the Koch brothers. The state is among the most gerrymandered in the nation and was one of seven states implicated in Trump’s fake electors scheme. According to Carmona, it’s time to push back. The decision to hold the Women’s March in Madison reflects just how much is at stake, she said. So does the theme of the march: “Bigger Than Roe.”
“This isn’t a single-issue march because we don’t lead single-issue lives.”
“Women are not just the battleground for the right around reproductive freedom. … We’re making decisions about when and how to have a family,” she said. “Like, can we afford it? Do we have a job? Do we have a house? What is our outlook on the future? Are we optimistic? Do we trust our institutions? Do we trust our elected officials? Do we trust our elections that get them there?”
The energy on the ground is encouraging, she said. In advance of the state Supreme Court election, the organization has rallied thousands of donors and nearly 1 million “action-takers”: people who have signed up for the march, signed on to petitions, and volunteered to knock on doors. Spring elections are often won by a slim margin, she noted. “We feel very, very well positioned to take up this fight because, honestly, mobilizing a thousand people is well within our ability.”
“We want to be clear that … this isn’t a single-issue march because we don’t lead single-issue lives,” she said. “And that women are coming for more than just the bare minimum, which should be bodily autonomy. We’re actually coming for a future where we can thrive.”
https://theintercept.com/2023/01/21/abortion-rights-roe-anniversary/?
Conservative dissenters block abortion limits in Nebraska, South Carolina
By Brittany Shammas, Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff, Rachel Roubein and Caroline Kitchener
Updated April 27, 2023 at 9:04 p.m. EDT|Published April 27, 2023 at 8:17 p.m. EDT
The failure of strict new abortion laws to advance in two conservative-dominated legislatures on the same day this week signaled a mounting fear among some Republicans that abortion bans could lead to political backlash.
A near-total ban on abortion failed Thursday in South Carolina, just hours before a six-week ban fizzled in Nebraska. Abortion remains legal in both states until 22 weeks of pregnancy.
In lengthy and often impassioned speeches on the South Carolina Senate floor, the state’s five female senators — three Republicans and two Democrats — decried what would have been a near-total ban on abortion. One, Sen. Sandy Senn ®, likened the implications to the dystopian novel “The Handmaid’s Tale,” in which women are treated as property of the state.
Abortion laws, Senn said, “have always been, each and every one of them, about control — plain and simple. And in the Senate, the males have all the control.”
While it was women who helped defeat the measure in South Carolina, in Nebraska it was an 80-year-old man who stalled it. Sen. Merv Riepe, a longtime Republican who would have been the decisive vote to advance the bill to a final round of voting, abstained over his concern that the six-week ban might not give women enough time to know they are pregnant.
Riepe told the Flatwater Free Press that he was concerned the Nebraska bill would be viewed as a total ban. “At the end of the day, I need to look back and be able to say to myself, ‘Did you do the best?’” Riepe told the paper. “No group came to me, asking me to do this. This is of my own beliefs, my own commitments.”
Riepe’s move led to a personal callout from Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen ®.
“I call on Senator Merv Riepe to make a motion to reconsider and stand by the commitments to Life he has made in the past,” Pillen said in a statement.
Thursday’s events caught the attention of national advocates on both sides of the issue, who have been tracking the fast-changing abortion landscape since Roe v. Wade was overturned last June. The ruling triggered a series of abortion bans across the South and Midwest and brought one the country’s most emotional issues to the forefront of the political debate.
Conservatives have pushed GOP leaders to seize the opportunity to enact strict bans, but voters across the country have repeatedly demonstrated their strong support for abortion rights, striking down antiabortion amendments even in conservative states like Kentucky and Kansas.
“This really shows that even in red states winning is still possible,” said Ianthe Metzger, director of state advocacy communications at Planned Parenthood Action Fund. “We do know that banning abortion is unpopular.”
In South Carolina, Republicans failed to bring the near-total ban to the governor’s desk after the Republican-led House passed it in February. They didn’t have the votes in the Senate to end a filibuster, effectively killing the bill for the year. However, a separate six-week ban in South Carolina already passed the Senate and could still become law this session if the House passes the bill before it ends in six days.
“It’s up to the House now,” Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey ® told reporters after the near-total ban failed. “They have the ability to prevent thousands of abortions in South Carolina.”
South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster ®, speaking to reporters Wednesday called on the legislature to “make a decision that will be acceptable to the vast majority of people in our state.” His office did not respond to a Washington Post inquiry about whether he believed the near-total ban went too far.
During a particularly heated debate, some Republican lawmakers opposed to the near-total ban said that abortion foes sent them plastic spines and notes urging the recipients to “grow a spine.” The move only seemed to strengthen their resolve.
South Carolina state Sen. Katrina Shealy ® blasted the plastic spines as “the worst example of lobbying” she had seen, according to the Post & Courier, adding that “I’ve got one hell of a spine already but now I’ve got another backup.” At least one of the models remained on a Senate desk as the debate over the near-total ban was underway.
South Carolina lawmakers spent much of the legislative session at an impasse over how to legislate abortion after the state Supreme Court in January struck down a 2021 law prohibiting the procedure at six weeks.
Hanging over the debate has been the concern among some Republicans that even a ban that might pass legal muster would alienate voters.
The 2022 midterms, in which a number of Democrats won competitive races after making abortion rights a central issue, were widely viewed as a danger sign for Republicans.
Some lawmakers took note of public opinion long before November. Last summer, debate on abortion restrictions came to a standstill in South Carolina and West Virginia, after moderate Republicans urged caution, warning their colleagues that abortion bans could alienate voters.
West Virginia passed a near-total ban several weeks later, but only after moderates pushed to eliminate any criminal penalties for doctors.
Several Republican-led states have successfully pushed through abortion restrictions this year, despite public opinion. In Wyoming and North Dakota, lawmakers passed new legislation outlawing almost all abortions. And Florida’s Republican-led legislature passed a six-week abortion ban earlier this month, which was signed into law hours later by Gov. Ron DeSantis ®.
In a region where most states have greatly curtailed access in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade, South Carolina has emerged as an unlikely refuge for the procedure, with out-of-state patients making up half of all abortions performed in the state so far this year, according to provisional data from the state Department of Health & Environmental Control.
The flow of out-of-state patients was expected to intensify in the wake of recent legislative moves in nearby states.
Senators who favored the ban in South Carolina wanted to stem the increase in abortions and out-of-state patients. Sen. Josh Kimbrell ® compared the number of abortions to school shootings, saying that “if we had that effect of school shootings, people would be going nuts — understandably so.”
The South Carolina bill contained exceptions for rape, incest, fatal fetal anomalies or when abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.
Senn was the only South Carolina Republican senator to also vote against the six-week ban passed by the Senate, preferring a ban after the first trimester.
Other female senators echoed her concern about their lack of representation in the halls of power.
“The total ban that’s being debated here today clearly places the rights of a fetus over the rights of the women and girls who will be forced by our male-dominated legislature to carry that fetus to term,” said Sen. Mia McLeod. “To be blunt, the majority has no frame of reference. There’s only five of us in this body who have actually given birth.”
After the South Carolina bill died Thursday, Students for Life Action, the political wing of the Students for Life antiabortion group, posted on Twitter, telling supporters “not to be fooled by fake pro-life Republicans.”
“South Carolina SHOULD have a filibuster-proof majority in order to pass this legislation, but some spineless Republicans are protecting the abortion lobby’s agenda,” the tweet read.
Vicki Ringer, director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, said the bill’s failure was a “temporary reprieve.” The six-week ban is still looming.
In Lincoln, Neb., where lawmakers are technically nonpartisan but generally have a party affiliation, conservatives said that all options will be under discussion in the future.
“You shoot for something, and you see what people think, and it seemed like just right now the heartbeat bill wasn’t quite right,” said state Sen. Ben Hansen, who chairs the committee that advanced the bill earlier this year.
Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe in June, Hansen said lawmakers across the country have been assessing the temperature of their state and trying to determine what limits on abortion can pass. He thinks a 12-week ban would be an easier bill to pass.
Abortion rights groups were relieved the procedure would be preserved for now. While they weren’t sure how each senator would vote, some advocates knew a number of conservative senators were not happy with the bill, said Andi Curry Grubb, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Nebraska.
“They had concerns. They had issues,” Curry Grubb said. “They were worried about the impact that it would have, but we also know that the pressure of party politics is intense.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/27/south-carolina-nebraska-abortion-bill/?
Texas, where women are less important than a fetus
By Ruth Marcus
Associate editor
January 3, 2024 at 5:48 p.m. EST
Texas doesn’t care if pregnant women die. That comes as no surprise in the post-Dobbs abortion landscape. But it’s worth noting when the state’s unceasing cruelty is aided and abetted by federal judges.
That’s what happened on the first business day of 2024, when the ultraconservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that a federal law requiring hospitals to provide emergency care doesn’t mean that they must perform abortions in situations when continuing the pregnancy would place the woman’s life or health in “serious jeopardy.”
If this sounds familiar, it should. Remember Kate Cox, the woman whose fetus suffered from a devastating genetic disorder and whose continued pregnancy threatened her fertility? The Texas Supreme Court turned her away — despite a state law that supposedly allows abortions when the woman’s life is in danger or there is “serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function” — and she was forced to leave the state to obtain an abortion.
Now comes the 5th Circuit — with a panel composed of two Trump-appointed judges and a third nominated by George W. Bush — to say that the federal emergency-care law doesn’t help women in these desperate circumstances, either.
The 1986 law, known as Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, was intended to stop the practice of hospitals “dumping” indigent patients who turned up at emergency rooms. It requires them to provide offered “necessary stabilizing treatment” for “emergency medical conditions” or risk losing Medicare funding.
The Biden administration invoked the law in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion. The Department of Health and Human Services issued “guidance” to hospitals stating that they must provide abortions when a pregnant patient “is experiencing an emergency medical condition” and “abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve that condition.”
Texas sued, arguing that EMTALA doesn’t compel hospitals to perform abortions in emergency circumstances. A Trump-nominated district judge agreed, and the 5th Circuit on Tuesday upheld that ruling in an opinion written by Kurt Engelhardt and joined by fellow Trump nominee Cory Wilson and Bush-appointed Leslie Southwick.
“We agree with the district court that EMTALA does not provide an unqualified right for the pregnant mother to abort her child especially when EMTALA poses equal stabilization obligations,” Engelhardt wrote.
The Biden administration’s brief in the case opened with a powerful description of the real-world stakes. “Sepsis, seizures, uncontrollable bleeding, organ failure, cardiac arrest — all of these can result from pregnancy-related complications, and all can lead to devastating medical consequences,” wrote Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton. “Texas asserts that it is a State’s prerogative to permit such harms. … But that is untenable: It jeopardizes the lives and health of individuals experiencing emergency pregnancy complications, and it forces emergency-room physicians to withhold treatment in the face of a patchwork of state restrictions and uncertain exceptions.”
You would not know from the appeals court opinion that there are real people — real women, in tragic circumstances, whose rights are involved here. Women such as Amanda Zurawski, who suffered sepsis after her membranes ruptured at 18 weeks and she was denied an abortion because the fetus, which was not going to survive, still had a heartbeat.
Instead, the court seized on a provision of EMTALA that refers to “the health of the woman or her unborn child” to assert that Congress meant to put both the pregnant woman and the fetus on the same plane. “The text speaks for itself: EMTALA requires hospitals to stabilize both the pregnant woman and her unborn child,” Engelhardt wrote. The law, he said, “does not provide an unqualified right for the pregnant mother to abort her child especially when EMTALA imposes equal stabilization obligations.”
Equal stabilization obligations. Women have to risk death because the fetus — the fetus they want to become their child — has some imagined equal status under the law to a living, grieving human being.
I wish I could say that a decision the other way would have offered some real protection to Texas women. As a practical matter, with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s mania to prevent women such as Cox and Zurawski from obtaining abortions, doctors and hospitals in the state can’t be blamed if they don’t want to risk criminal prosecution for performing abortions. At best, the Biden administration’s argument that EMTALA applies in such situations puts them in a bind between facing that risk and the threat of losing federal funds.
For better or worse, this decision isn’t the end of the dispute. The Biden administration made the aggressive move of suing Idaho, whose abortion law is even more draconian than Texas’s, allowing an exception only when the mother’s life is at risk.
A Clinton-nominated district judge sided with the administration, and an all-Trump panel of three appeals court judges ruled for Idaho. The full 9th Circuit will hear oral arguments in the case this month.
In the meantime, the 9th Circuit reinstated the lower-court order blocking Idaho from enforcing its abortion law in emergency rooms. The state has gone to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to have that order overturned, complaining that the move “effectively turns EMTALA’s protection for the uninsured into a federal super-statute on the issue of abortion, one that strips Idaho of its sovereign interest in protecting innocent human life.” No one who witnessed the justices’ performance in Dobbs should be confident about how they will rule.
Maybe I was naive, but I did not think, in the days after Dobbs, that we’d end up here, with arguments over whether to allow women to have abortions in these terrible situations. It’s not just a matter of common decency — it’s terrible politics for antiabortion forces to align themselves against sympathetic figures such as Cox.
That they have tells you all you need to know about their zealotry.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/03/abortion-texas-5th-circuit-emergency/?
