International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

wareyin 30th June 2022 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13845263)
Now the SC has gutted the EPA

Hey, c'mon, it's now paradise! No clean air to breathe, no right to privacy, no right to marry who you choose, and best of all, way more ******* guns in public!

Upchurch 30th June 2022 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13845291)
Hey, c'mon, it's now paradise! No clean air to breathe, no right to privacy, no right to marry who you choose, and best of all, way more ******* guns in public!

No bodily autonomy. (You don’t need two healthy lungs, do you?)

Ziggurat 30th June 2022 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13845285)
I keep on telling you people, there is no peaceful solution to this.
You will have to choose between your freedom and your pacifism.

Sure there is. Win elections. Get the laws you want passed. Amend the constitution if it's sufficiently important.

What you really mean is that you can't achieve your policy goals through ordinary democratic methods because they aren't actually sufficiently popular.

Garrison 30th June 2022 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13845320)
Sure there is. Win elections. Get the laws you want passed. Amend the constitution if it's sufficiently important.

What you really mean is that you can't achieve your policy goals through ordinary democratic methods because they aren't actually sufficiently popular.

I assume you are referring to the current Republican strategy?

cosmicaug 30th June 2022 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13845320)
What you really mean is that you can't achieve your policy goals through ordinary democratic methods because they aren't actually sufficiently popular.

Yes, because the GOP now is the party which stands for "ordinary democratic methods".

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ziggurat 30th June 2022 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13845247)
It's not widespread, but it's starting to happen.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...ption-85963071

No, it's not starting to happen. Even the headline should have clued you in.
St. Luke’s Health Kansas City said in a statement Wednesday that it would resume offering the medication known as the morning after pill, a day after it told The Kansas City Star that its Missouri hospitals would halt emergency contraception.

It did so after the state's attorney general issued a statement stating unequivicolly that emergency contraception is not illegal under an abortion ban that was enacted minutes after Friday's U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade. The Missouri law bans all abortions except in cases of medical emergency.

shuttlt 30th June 2022 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13845320)
Sure there is. Win elections. Get the laws you want passed. Amend the constitution if it's sufficiently important.

What you really mean is that you can't achieve your policy goals through ordinary democratic methods because they aren't actually sufficiently popular.

I don't know. There doesn't look like any possibility of anybody having the support to resolve this by changing the constitution. There seems to be an increasing push to not accept the legitimacy of laws from the other side. There seems to be an increasing trend to accuse the other side of cheating to win the election. It'll all work itself out somehow, but "how" is going to be interesting.

Ziggurat 30th June 2022 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13845340)
Yes, because the GOP now is the party which stands for "ordinary democratic methods".

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This isn't about parties. It's about you. Do YOU believe in democracy? dudalb apparently doesn't. If you only believe in democracy when you're winning elections, then you don't really believe in democracy.

Ziggurat 30th June 2022 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13845350)
I don't know. There doesn't look like any possibility of anybody having the support to resolve this by changing the constitution.

Well, yes. Because no side is sufficiently popular right now.

Which is precisely why this issue is better handled by the legislature than by the courts.

shuttlt 30th June 2022 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13845352)
Well, yes. Because no side is sufficiently popular right now.

Which is precisely why this issue is better handled by the legislature than by the courts.

I don't think that that is going to do much to relieve the pressure overall. The whole game since the 60s, maybe even the 30s has been to push social change federally. That has built up a heck of a lot of expectation and power. If we are looking at it in isolation of the forces and pressures involved, I agree with you. I am not altogether sure that that is going to be an acceptable answer.

Upchurch 30th June 2022 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13845116)
Depends on who you count as an individual. If a fetus is an individual worthy of consideration, then Dobbs has significantly protected their rights and freedoms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13845152)
Of course, the obvious consequence is the question of whether someone without functioning kidneys has a right to a functioning kidney from someone who has two good kidneys.

Too out there for a response? How about forced blood donation?

Sorry, at that point, it wouldn't be a "donation".

How about forced blood harvesting to save people having surgery or suffering from some form of traumatic blood loss? Since Dobbs strikes down unenumerated rights based on Due Process, American citizens no longer have a right to bodily autonomy. If you can save one or more lives by forcing another individual through a procedure they'll probably live through, where is the legal or constitutional boundary?

shuttlt 30th June 2022 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13845401)
Too out there for a response? How about forced blood donation?

Sorry, at that point, it wouldn't be a "donation".

How about forced blood harvesting to save people having surgery or suffering from some form of traumatic blood loss? Since Dobbs strikes down unenumerated rights based on Due Process, American citizens no longer have a right to bodily autonomy. If you can save one or more lives by forcing another individual through a procedure they'll probably live through, where is the legal or constitutional boundary?

Didn't we go through this with Covid vaccines? The federal government seemed to be relatively able to put people under a lot of pressure to accept medical procedures that violated their bodily autonomy in the service of the greater good.

Upchurch 30th June 2022 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13845405)
Didn't we go through this with Covid vaccines? The federal government seemed to be relatively able to put people under a lot of pressure to accept medical procedures that violated their bodily autonomy in the service of the greater good.

Sure, and there is an argument to be made that, under emergency conditions, rights can be temporarily suspended so the country can deal with the crisis. Even then, no one was forced to take a vaccine. They could opt to not take one, but were then limited on where they could go and what they could participated in.

This isn't that. This is the permanent removal of the right to bodily autonomy. If one's state makes a law that abortion is illegal and that it is illegal to go across state lines to have an abortion, a pregnant person has no legal option.

dudalb 30th June 2022 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13845351)
This isn't about parties. It's about you. Do YOU believe in democracy? dudalb apparently doesn't. If you only believe in democracy when you're winning elections, then you don't really believe in democracy.



Well, the GOP has pretty much abandoned Democrcy anyway...

shuttlt 30th June 2022 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13845411)
Sure, and there is an argument to be made that, under emergency conditions, rights can be temporarily suspended so the country can deal with the crisis. Even then, no one was forced to take a vaccine. They could opt to not take one, but were then limited on where they could go and what they could participated in.

This isn't that. This is the permanent removal of the right to bodily autonomy. If one's state makes a law that abortion is illegal and that it is illegal to go across state lines to have an abortion, a pregnant person has no legal option.

The US has been in a state of emergency since 1979. That is business as usual. You think, if they what ever their reason for wanting to do something like this wouldn't also be an emergency, continually extended like covid was? Implementing it through government would be the hard way though.

People were losing their jobs over the vaccine. We are living in a world now where government and global corporations work hand in glove. There is little need for the government to force you to do things, when they can just say how nice it would be if your employer threatened to fire you, or maybe close you bank account, if you don't do what they want.

I'm not sure that a state could make a law saying you couldn't cross state lines to do something that was legal in another state.

bruto 30th June 2022 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13845411)
Sure, and there is an argument to be made that, under emergency conditions, rights can be temporarily suspended so the country can deal with the crisis. Even then, no one was forced to take a vaccine. They could opt to not take one, but were then limited on where they could go and what they could participated in.

This isn't that. This is the permanent removal of the right to bodily autonomy. If one's state makes a law that abortion is illegal and that it is illegal to go across state lines to have an abortion, a pregnant person has no legal option.

In the latter case it is potentially worse, if officials look to prevention. It is, after all, unknown what a person's reason for travel is, unless it is monitored and controllled. A pregnant person or even a potentially pregnant person could be denied what we have cmplacently considered common freedom, which is not explicit.

We have always assumed that the Constitution guarantees the right to travel between states without search, seizure and intrusion, but like many such issues it is not explicit. The fourteenth amendment seems to suggest it, but a raging originalist might find it not really there., and though the abolition of slavery ended the need for Black people to show papers, the mechanism is not explicitly abolished.

Ha ha ha, couldn't happen here....!

Upchurch 30th June 2022 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13845436)
People were losing their jobs over the vaccine.

People were losing their lives fighting over the vaccine, but you're missing the point: There is no longer any Constitutional barrier to blood or organ harvesting. The right that protected us from actions like that was the foundation of Roe and it is now gone. If the state decides it needs one of your kidneys or your body after you die, nothing prevents them from codifying it into law and making it happen.

cosmicaug 30th June 2022 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13845414)
[/b]
Well, the GOP has pretty much abandoned Democrcy anyway...

He gets the point. He's only pretending not to (partly because he's perfectly fine with it).

shuttlt 30th June 2022 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13845446)
People were losing their lives fighting over the vaccine, but you're missing the point: There is no longer any Constitutional barrier to blood or organ harvesting. The right that protected us from actions like that was the foundation of Roe and it is now gone. If the state decides it needs one of your kidneys or your body after you die, nothing prevents them from codifying it into law and making it happen.

Maybe. Do all protections have to be federal and tied to constitutional rights? If it's a big issue, it might well be much easier for the states where it is an issue to ban it.

dudalb 30th June 2022 03:12 PM

My predictions of massive violence amounting to a second civil War are not so crazy now, are they?

dudalb 30th June 2022 03:14 PM

I never thought I would say this, but I would support BIden saying, vis a vis the EPA decision:

"Mr Roberts has made his decision. Let him enforce it".

Upchurch 30th June 2022 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13845460)
Maybe. Do all protections have to be federal and tied to constitutional rights? If it's a big issue, it might well be much easier for the states where it is an issue to ban it.

What predictions? States with anti-abortion laws are already forcing people to use their bodies to save “individuals”, as Zig puts it, who aren’t even legally people.

Segnosaur 30th June 2022 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13845320)
Sure there is. Win elections.

Great... all the democrats have to do is overcome the gerrymandering and voter suppression taking place in various red states, limit the influence of "big money" campaign donors, deal with an electoral college that seems to give more preference to cows than people, and magically keep countries like Russia from interfering in future elections.

I'm sure the supreme court would be more than willing to help with some of those. Oh, wait, they already had their say, and their response was "go ahead and suppress all those minority votes and gerrymander away. We don't care."
Quote:

This isn't about parties. It's about you. Do YOU believe in democracy? dudalb apparently doesn't. If you only believe in democracy when you're winning elections, then you don't really believe in democracy.
At the risk of speaking for dudalb, I rather suspect he DOES believe in democracy. He just seems to have problems with elements of the American system that are currently being exhibited, which is no longer characterized as a 'full democracy' and is rapidly going down the toilet.

slyjoe 30th June 2022 05:22 PM

In related news, the SC didn't take up NY vaccine mandate order.

Clarence Thomas, on an abortion-related roll, diseented:

Quote:

In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas expressed support Thursday for a debunked claim that all Covid vaccines are made with cells from “aborted children.”
I seriously think Thomas has jumped the shark.

ETA: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...abor-rcna36156

Segnosaur 30th June 2022 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13845343)
No, it's not starting to happen. Even the headline should have clued you in.
St. Luke’s Health Kansas City said in a statement Wednesday that it would resume offering the medication known as the morning after pill, a day after it told The Kansas City Star that its Missouri hospitals would halt emergency contraception.

It did so after the state's attorney general issued a statement stating unequivicolly that emergency contraception is not illegal under an abortion ban that was enacted minutes after Friday's U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade. The Missouri law bans all abortions except in cases of medical emergency.

First of all, the fact that the a hospital (an organization that probably has decent legal experts on staff) was concerned about dispensing the morning after pill should make a rational person a bit nervous, since it indicates a law that is vague.

Secondly... why should anyone trust the Attorney general? He's a Republican... a member of the party that has decided that women cannot control their own bodies. It certainly would not be out of character for them to change their opinion in the near future if the members of Y'all Quaeda raise a big-enough fuss.

shuttlt 30th June 2022 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyjoe (Post 13845548)
In related news, the SC didn't take up NY vaccine mandate order.

Clarence Thomas, on an abortion-related roll, diseented:



I seriously think Thomas has jumped the shark.

ETA: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...abor-rcna36156

Could you explain how he is wrong? The only quote they have from him in the article is "because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children". The article goes on to explain "The fetal tissue used in these processes came from elective abortions that happened decades ago. But the cells have since replicated many times, so none of the original tissue is involved in the making of modern vaccines.".

They add in a claim that the cells that are currently being used are from foetal tissue and debunk his statement based on that. Their quote from him doesn't make that claim though. They also equivocate from his statement of "developed using" to "manufactured from".

This is pretty typical of the way fact checkers operate where they debunk a claim that is more specific, or otherwise altered, from the statement that they are ostensibly debunking.

Does he actually make the claim they debunk anywhere?

Skeptic Ginger 30th June 2022 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13845351)
This isn't about parties. It's about you. Do YOU believe in democracy? dudalb apparently doesn't. If you only believe in democracy when you're winning elections, then you don't really believe in democracy.

WTF are you talking about?

Have you been living under a rock for the last 25 years? The GOP is the better marketers and horrible legislators. The Democrats are terrible marketers and they can't get much passed the party of 'blocking every ******* thing whether it was originally their idea or not and whether it is good for the country or not'.

Mitch McConnell has been as bad for the country as Drumpf.

Perhaps you could describe this magical democracy you believe is possible when the minority is running the country.

Skeptic Ginger 30th June 2022 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13845352)
Well, yes. Because no side is sufficiently popular right now.

Which is precisely why this issue is better handled by the legislature than by the courts.

Yeah..no. Do you mean the majority just doesn't have a big enough super-majority to get past the minority?

Skeptic Ginger 30th June 2022 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13845466)
I never thought I would say this, but I would support BIden saying, vis a vis the EPA decision:

"Mr Roberts has made his decision. Let him enforce it".

That's good for the EPA crap but I believe it may be working for the Alito in charge of abortions too.

There is at least one prosecutor in TX balking at enforcing the abortion ban. Remember the sheriffs that wouldn't enforce mask mandates? Instead of a civil war what we might end up with are police departments selectively enforcing laws. With a disrespected SCOTUS we are closer to that kind of breakup of the country.

Skeptic Ginger 30th June 2022 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyjoe (Post 13845548)
In related news, the SC didn't take up NY vaccine mandate order.

Clarence Thomas, on an abortion-related roll, diseented:

I seriously think Thomas has jumped the shark.

ETA: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...abor-rcna36156

Think about it, his wife has come out publicly professing CTs. I'm not the least bit surprised to hear that he believes any number of ignorant things.

slyjoe 30th June 2022 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13845563)
Could you explain how he is wrong? The only quote they have from him in the article is "because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children". The article goes on to explain "The fetal tissue used in these processes came from elective abortions that happened decades ago. But the cells have since replicated many times, so none of the original tissue is involved in the making of modern vaccines.".

They add in a claim that the cells that are currently being used are from foetal tissue and debunk his statement based on that. Their quote from him doesn't make that claim though. They also equivocate from his statement of "developed using" to "manufactured from".

This is pretty typical of the way fact checkers operate where they debunk a claim that is more specific, or otherwise altered, from the statement that they are ostensibly debunking.

Does he actually make the claim they debunk anywhere?

I see your point.

However, the plaintiffs were OK with vaccines developed in the same way; the cell lines were using in testing the mRNA vaccine, not in manufacturing it. So explain how this should qualify for a religious exemption?

cmikes 30th June 2022 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13845466)
I never thought I would say this, but I would support BIden saying, vis a vis the EPA decision:

"Mr Roberts has made his decision. Let him enforce it".


Spoken like a true Stalinist. "How many battalions does the Pope have?"

Stacyhs 30th June 2022 06:10 PM

Florida judge rules state's 15 week abortion ban violates the "privacy" clause of FL's constitution. He'll issue statewide injunction. DeSantis' office says it will appeal to state's conservative SC to reverse existing precedent regarding FL' right to privacy.

Looks like reversing he right to privacy has become the GOP's baby.

Ziggurat 30th June 2022 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13845550)
Secondly... why should anyone trust the Attorney general?

Because he's the attorney general. And by making this public statement, he has committed his office to that position. He cannot prosecute people for doing what he said was OK.

Delphic Oracle 30th June 2022 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyjoe (Post 13845591)
I see your point.



However, the plaintiffs were OK with vaccines developed in the same way; the cell lines were using in testing the mRNA vaccine, not in manufacturing it. So explain how this should qualify for a religious exemption?

Because their "sincerely held religious belief something something."

Judgement in favor of the plaintiff.

Case dismissed.

The Great Zaganza 30th June 2022 10:00 PM

many religious groups, Jews among them, have the sincerely held religious belief that they should be able to get an abortion if it's the best for the pregnant person.

The SC doesn't give a **** about any religion but their own.

Bob001 30th June 2022 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmikes (Post 13845592)
Spoken like a true Stalinist. "How many battalions does the Pope have?"

The reference is to a remark attributed to Andrew Jackson.
https://quotes.yourdictionary.com/author/quote/567967

Skeptic Ginger 30th June 2022 11:02 PM

Jon Stewart's podcast was very informative today. His guests are three female law professors and they know a lot about the history, this court, the religious right, and more. It's close to 45min long. I found every bit of it interesting.
Quote:

Roe v. Wade has been overturned. So now what the hell are we supposed to do? The hosts of the Strict Scrutiny podcast — law professors Leah Litman, Melissa Murray, and Kate Shaw — are back to help Jon process the shocking decision. Writers Kris Acimovic and Tocarra Mallard also weigh in on why the Democrats answer to this crisis seems to be giving them $15.
The link in case you want to watch it outside of the forum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twb_v78C1q4

If you want to watch it here or just sample it, here you go:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Suddenly 1st July 2022 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13845466)
I never thought I would say this, but I would support BIden saying, vis a vis the EPA decision:

"Mr Roberts has made his decision. Let him enforce it".

As soon as RBG turned out to not be a highlander this is where it was heading. Packing the court was the best option, but that time has far passed in part because we listened to people who are way too emotionally invested in the sanctity of the Supreme Court and who failed to comprehend that it's now gone fully rogue and back and forth packing and repacking making the court way less coherent is still a win.

The only thing that requires the other branches to listen to the court are the same sort of norms the GOP has been using as toilet paper to their ends. Which is why they need to do this. They probably half-assed do this as to abortion in that abortion meds are FDA approved and there is some issue with state statutes that make FDA approved medicines illegal. They will be similarly cute with regulations somehow. Supremacy clause, etc.

This will eventually come to naught because we are effectively Iran; a political structure operating under the approval of a council of religious extremists mostly concerned with maintaining their group's hegemony over their people. It's just developing slowly but will speed up as dark money pacs ramp up and go full speed at manufacturing cases to get issues in front of the court.

This was always the danger of framing Supreme Court justices as priests handing down received wisdom as to the meaning of the constitution.

Brainster 1st July 2022 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyjoe (Post 13845548)
In related news, the SC didn't take up NY vaccine mandate order.

Clarence Thomas, on an abortion-related roll, diseented:



I seriously think Thomas has jumped the shark.

ETA: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...abor-rcna36156

It's the lying media as usual. Thomas was quoting the petitioners:

Quote:

Petitioners are 16 healthcare workers who served New York communities throughout the COVID–19 pandemic. They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines de-
rived from aborted children.
And that particular claim isn't exactly incorrect, even according to NBC News:

Quote:

Pfizer and Moderna used fetal cell lines early in their Covid vaccine development to test the efficacy of their formulas, as other vaccines have in the past. The fetal tissue used in these processes came from elective abortions that happened decades ago. But the cells have since replicated many times, so none of the original tissue is involved in the making of modern vaccines.
So they were derived from abortions, just many years ago and they've since been replicated, so it doesn't really count?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.