Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion

[Specter Von Baren]

And illegal in Missouri even in cases of rape, incest, and incestual rape

"The law prohibits abortion after eight weeks of gestation unless there is a critical medical reason. There are no exceptions for rape, incest or human trafficking."

So if they use that law then it's not actually getting outlawed but specifying when it can or can't be done? Don't all states have a cutoff date?

 

[Dreiko]

I've said this before, I'll say it forever.

It is not up to the democrats. It's not up to the Republicans. It is up to the independents. The Fence sitters. If the independents have feelings about this, they need to make their voice heard as well.

Even though I'm not technically a democrat any more (Progressive), it's very convenient to try to pin it on the softest target.

Republicans vote in evil and dumb asses and get to point the fingers to the democrats.

Democrats keep trying to follow rules of civility that no one cares for, and the people just want to see action. Hence the push for Progressives and the distancing of Corporates like Pelosi.

And Independents sit with their thumbs up their ass and go "I'm impartial".

If it's so universally bad that you can blame one, you can blame all. Democrats, be f'ing warriors. Republicans, Be f'ing smarter. Independents, choose a real God Damned Side.

Sadly nobody's allowed to be an independent fence sitter, if you disagree with any of the democratic tenants they brand you a republican as a way of manipulating you into supporting something you disagree with, and if you're not white you're branded a democrat because republicans are dumb or propagandized enough to think silly stuff. So people just say fuck you to both of those groups and just abstain.


Also it's interesting to say you're not a democrat any more when you're progressive, cause democrats will claim to be progressive all the time too. Pelosi said so about herself, in fact.


I say screw the labels and just embrace specific issues you care for. Like for example, I'm for a UBI, a maximum wage of at most x10 the lowest wage in a company (necessitating bosses who wish to get a raise to increase everyone else's wage first), closing most of our military bases around the planet, decimating the defense budget and investing it in civilian affairs and sciences, absolute freedom of expression and the arts which codifies a legal standard be met before someone's true thoughts can be judged by another, a cessation to all fossil fuel subsidies and reinvestment in green energy, the building of a house per homeless person, with another 100k houses to spare for future homeless people to coincide with illegalizing sleeping outside without an (expensive) camping permit. A ban to all sorts of bullets and projectiles, and multiplying the amount of judges hired to handle immigration applications so we don't have people waiting any longer than just a couple hours upon arriving at the border to get their cases heard.


Now, I don't care at all about race or gender or ethnic issues, so their exclusion will make some feel this fits the republican label, but I don't care about labels, I just value these sorts of policies the most and will vote for whoever I think is closest to them. It doesn't mean I hate other policies or the people whom they affect, I just care infinitely less about them and think they're less significant, which is an allowable view to hold, or should be anyways.

In other words, fence sitters are stupid and/or have no convictions to have courage in.

Nah they just have convictions that are not represented by either party, and don't give a fuck about other people's convictions that they do not share, and why should they.


This is what happens when only 2 parties can play the game, people who have a third view feel excluded and opt out.

 

[Buyetyen]

Nah they just have convictions that are not represented by either party, and don't give a fuck about other people's convictions that they do not share, and why should they.

Sadly, this has not been my experience.

 

[Catfood220]

I have this novel idea. You do whatever the fuck you want with you own body and you pay for the consequences of your actions yourself. You don't tell other people what they can and can't do with theirs because you think you speak for your imaginary sky man.

Damn it America, why are you so opposed to people having control over their own bodies?

 

[09philj]

I put it to the forum that a having body which is essentially partisan but also not elected is not a very good idea.

Next on the list of contentious decisions is probably Lawrence vs Texas, which made homosexual intercourse legal. That decision was made in 2003, in my lifetime, and made homosexual sex legal in 13 US states.

 

[BrawlMan]

Damn it America, why are you so opposed to people having control over their own bodies?

Because they're "God Given Right" to stop sinners and get their chair in heaven. So being bitches is there answer to everything.

 

[Schadrach]

Honestly I think it'll end up just kicking abortion medicine research into over drive. Scientist will work even harder to make abortion easier to do at home. I'll also bet insurance companies will both support and fund it. Thats the funny thing. They always think corporations are on their side, but forget that the only official religion in the US is profit and cost limiting. The last thing insurance companies want is people self-harming doing unscientific home abortions and causing themselves more trips to the hospital. Insurance companies even fully cover physical therapy and what not because it limits the longterm potential costs.

The drugs used for drug induced abortions are also treatment for some other diseases. So I half expect a cottage industry of women who "don't know they are pregnant" getting diagnosed with an illness treated by a drug that causes an abortion as an end run around it.

Clarence Thomas writes that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.
Guess all of us doom and gloomers we're just ahead of the curve, huh?

Once you remove the "right to privacy" kind of loosely stitched together out of other rights, everything based on it is potentially a target.

It is not up to the democrats. It's not up to the Republicans. It is up to the independents. The Fence sitters. If the independents have feelings about this, they need to make their voice heard as well.

There are basically three groups of voters:

R will nearly always vote Republican if they vote.
D will nearly always vote Democrat if they vote.
F have to be sold on either party to vote for them.

There are a lot more Ds than Rs, but Rs vote almost every time and Ds need motivated to go vote (usually by fear of a Republican winning, rather than anything the Democrat is supposed to actually accomplish - which is why a lot of Dems are generally useless, they don't have to do anything beyond not be a Republican).

Democrats are almost laughably bad at selling themselves to Fs, beyond the degree they get from the fear of Republicans narrative. Like so bad that I am from a state where we voted Democrat for most of the state's history until 2000. The first woman we sent to the House was more notable for being the first Republican we'd elected to Congress in 40 years. We're now considered one of the safest red states. That's just how bad Dems are at messaging and selling themselves - it's not like the state population suddenly and dramatically shifted politics overnight.

And illegal in Missouri even in cases of rape, incest, and incestual rape

And here in WV:

" Any person who shall administer to, or cause to be taken by, a woman, any drug or other thing, or use any means, with intent to destroy her unborn child, or to produce abortion or miscarriage, and shall thereby destroy such child, or produce such abortion or miscarriage, shall be guilty of a felony, and, upon conviction, shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than three nor more than ten years; and if such woman die by reason of such abortion performed upon her, such person shall be guilty of murder. No person, by reason of any act mentioned in this section, shall be punishable where such act is done in good faith, with the intention of saving the life of such woman or child. "

That's the old 1848 Virginia abortion law that carried over when we split from Virginia in 1863, was never removed and is suddenly enforceable again.

Also relevant is the much more recent 20-week ban:

ARTICLE 2M. THE PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT.
§16-2M-4. Abortion of fetus of pain capable gestational age prohibited.

(a) No person may perform or induce, or attempt to perform or induce, an abortion when it has been determined, by the physician performing or inducing or attempting to perform or induce the abortion or by another physician upon whose determination that physician relies, that the probable gestational age of the fetus has reached the pain capable gestational age, unless in the reasonable medical judgment of a reasonably prudent physician there exists a nonmedically viable fetus or the patient has a condition that, on the basis of a reasonably prudent physician's reasonable medical judgment, so complicates her medical condition as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death or to avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including psychological or emotional conditions. No condition may be deemed a medical emergency if based on a claim or diagnosis that the woman will engage in conduct which she intends to result in her death or in substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.

(b) When an abortion upon a patient whose fetus has been determined to have a probable gestational age that has reached the pain capable gestational age is not prohibited by subsection (a) of this section, the physician shall terminate the pregnancy in the manner which, in reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the fetus to survive, unless, in reasonable medical judgment, termination of the pregnancy in that manner would pose a greater risk either of the death of the patient or of the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the patient than would other available methods.

Don't all states have a cutoff date?

Read what is now enforceable law here in WV. I guess means you get two charges for an abortion after 20 weeks? And a murder charge if an abortion attempt kills the mother.

So a 21 week abortion in WV that results in death of the mother would be charged with abortion, murder, and abortion after 20 weeks.

 

[BrawlMan]

Nah they just have convictions that are not represented by either party, and don't give a fuck about other people's convictions that they do not share, and why should they.

Is that same attitude and part of the reason why Trump got presidency. You had a whole bunch of people claiming "nothing I do really matters!". Most of them between the ages of 18 and 25 of course. It certainly mattered when the big fuck nut started screwing everything up! They thought it'll all be fun and games! They thought nothing could go wrong! They thought nothing they did actually matter! It was only when they start seeing how many screw ups he made, how much the country was messing up even further, and the World at Large was receiving the after effects, they decide to get off their asses and do something.

 

[Buyetyen]

Damn it America, why are you so opposed to people having control over their own bodies?

Because when people have the power to self-determine, that's power that Republicans don't have over them.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

"The law prohibits abortion after eight weeks of gestation unless there is a critical medical reason. There are no exceptions for rape, incest or human trafficking."

So if they use that law then it's not actually getting outlawed but specifying when it can or can't be done? Don't all states have a cutoff date?

What's with this sociopathic avoidance of calling a ban a ban as long as it has some flimsy, narrow way it can theoretically be used?

8 weeks is one missed period. It doesn't matter if it's a 12 year old raped by their dad. Those assholes are calling it a ban, why can't you?

Schmitt said abortion is now outlawed in the state, except in cases of medical emergency.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Fucking useless



If the GOP gets within spiting distance of a majority in November it's Federal abortion restrictions in January. If they get an *actual* majority, it's Federal abortion bans and fuck your exceptions.

So of course the Dems are fundraising with thought and prayers

 

[Specter Von Baren]

What's with this sociopathic avoidance of calling a ban a ban as long as it has some flimsy, narrow way it can theoretically be used?

8 weeks is one missed period. It doesn't matter if it's a 12 year old raped by their dad. Those assholes are calling it a ban, why can't you?

A ban is "you cannot do this" while what I quoted says "you can do this unless". Even laws saying you can abort have a cutoff for when that can no longer occur. Most, most, most, you see me say most, that means don't come at me with a few specific clear cut cases and use it as indicative of the whole population, people don't actually, in reality, have a binary opinion on this issue. They just assume that the vagaries of exceptions are just "obvious" and taken for granted.

It's the people of now that are going to have to fight and rip into each other to come to something that we can hopefully agree on. Sucks that this was kicked down the road for 50 years so that we have to deal with it but we're here now, get moving, even if a state is "lost", defeat is not final.

 

[Agema]

If the GOP gets within spiting distance of a majority in November it's Federal abortion restrictions in January. If they get an *actual* majority, it's Federal abortion bans and fuck your exceptions.

I seriously doubt that.

They've already got what they want most, both in terms of "states' rights" and keeping their red state core happy. If they really want to ban abortion at a Federal level, they are inviting a catastrophic election defeat straight after: and if these guys know anything, it's how not to put their seats at risk.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

I seriously doubt that.

They've already got what they want most, both in terms of "states' rights" and keeping their red state core happy. If they really want to ban abortion at a Federal level, they are inviting a catastrophic election defeat straight after: and if these guys know anything, it's how not to put their seats at risk.

They need something else to rile up their base, they will go for that.

 

[Buyetyen]

I seriously doubt that.

They've already got what they want most, both in terms of "states' rights" and keeping their red state core happy. If they really want to ban abortion at a Federal level, they are inviting a catastrophic election defeat straight after: and if these guys know anything, it's how not to put their seats at risk.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Clarence Thomas has announced his intention to go after same-sex intimacy and marriage as well as the right to contraception. Already, uteruses are more regulated than guns in the US and they've announced their desire to go even further. They're not done yet by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I seriously doubt that.

Can you seriously doubt anything anymore at this point? I certainly can't. Other than that things can't get any worse, I CAN seriously doubt that.

 

[Elijin]

I remember when I was a kid and America was a place to look up to. Back in the days when they at least pretended separation of church and state was important.

 

[Agema]

They need something else to rile up their base, they will go for that.

They do have something to go for: as Buyetyen noted, there's a whole lot more they're gunning for and Clarence Thomas has expressly invited them to.

Whether all the 5 more extreme conservatives on the court truly have the will to revoke such a load of acts is another matter. But someone's going to start referring this stuff, and they might just overturn a lot of it. Whilst the courts are busy dismantling decades of laws and state governments remaking their statute books as they see fit, at a federal level the Republicans probably just want to do little but let it happen.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Annnd there it is, just as predicted

You know what falls under the same umbrella as the things Thomas mentioned, but he didn't name? Interracial marriage. Why? Because his wife is white.

"We don't need to protect those rights. I'm not using them."

 

[Silvanus]

Who cares? Imma go with "who cares?" No judge should ever make a decision based on "will this help my party".

But also, it might.

Without relitigating the old arguments we've had about Roe v. Wade, I have to ask out of curiosity: how do you feel about Thomas' statement that the protections for contraception and same-sex relationships should also be reconsidered?