Among the consequence of no-Roe:
https://slate.com/technology/2022/07...e-d-and-c.html

So doctors might not be able to provide standard health care for fear they'll be accused of performing an illegal abortion.

Says the member with Jesus as his avatar and who complains bitterly ad nauseum about how Christians are being targeted.

That's not what YOU said though, is it? No. You said, "Children can be made to carry rape and incest babies to term for all I care," and "I don't care how many suffer now due to this ruling, either." You "don't care" about the suffering of these children or anyone else because "liberals have brought this upon themselves." As long as liberals suffer you're just fine with it. Trouble is, I don't think 10-11-13-14 year olds think much about politics.

Of course you don't. And water is wet.

And you still haven't answered my question which you conveniently edited out:

"Since Roe v Wade in 1973, exactly what 'ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" have liberals made? "

9th month abortions are a manufactured talking point trying to make pro-choice people look bad. If there is a reason to end a pregnancy in the 9th month then it is called inducing labor or a c-section. It's done if the mother or the fetus are in trouble and generally every attempt to save a viable infant are taken. No one decides to end their pregnancies in the 9th month without a serious health risk of some kind. And no health care providers would kill a near-term fetus or infant.

Third trimester abortions may occur for a number of reasons but if one is talking about the whim of the mother, that isn't done. Pro-choice advocates who talk about "no restrictions" mean in the law. They don't mean health care providers should go around murdering full-term infants. Leaving it up to the provider and the pregnant person is where the decisions should be made.

And that decision by those 7 justices has been the law of the land for half a century. The law protected women's rights from state or federal laws that denied them. Many federal laws, upheld by the SCOTUS defend the rights of individuals against states that would otherwise deny those individual rights like segregation and other forms of discrimination.

Making abortion illegal doesn't decrease abortions. So just what "states' rights" are being protected by denying women the right to bodily autonomy?

So this whole business of returning the decision to the states is a cop-out excuse.

Offhand, I would suspect it's for the same reason they oppose most birth control: The more Catholics, the better.

Brava! The "9th month abortion" scare mongering has been pointed out often before, including by me, yet they continue to throw it around. It's the abortion equivalent to "If they ban assault style weapons, they'll come for all your guns next!" It's dishonest, but what else is new?

Yep. It's the same with Mormons who forbid birth control and abortion. All the millions of 'spirit children' are waiting to be born and to become good Mormons.

Well killing and neglecting children is something people fight for, see protections for parents when they refuse to treat medical conditions for religious reasons and easily treatable conditions kill kids.

That's from 2014 and follows religious beliefs rather closely. I don't think those religious persons should be dictating laws like making abortion illegal.

The strongest religious views unsurprisingly correlate with being against aid to the poor. :rolleyes:

The SCOTUS justices are clearly Christian religious extremists. They make no attempt to hide that.

So that's the equivalent of more than half the population protesting overturning Roe?

I didn't think I needed to point out there would be tiny handfuls of people who don't like certain laws.

Religious exemptions for medical neglect of children are fairly commonplace and popular.

You think things have changed so much that abortion opposition isn't still the majority in even a single state? That's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

This is basically an argument that religious people shouldn't get a vote, or their vote should count for less. That is deeply, deeply undemocratic, and such a position is far more antithetical to our constitution than any possible views on abortion itself.

Well, no. Strongly religious people tend to view government welfare negatively. They also tend to give more to private charities which help the poor. I'm not interested in getting into an argument about the merits of government welfare vs. private charity, but your support for one over the other doesn't make anyone anti-poor. But this isn't relevant to my argument in any case, it's off topic and there's nothing more to add that would be in any way productive.

And yet, there are abortion advocates who argue for it, without any qualifications. They want abortion on demand, for any reason, up to the due date. They are a small minority, to be sure, but that's kind of my point.

Yes, actually it is done. Rarely, but not never.

Says who? Based on what evidence?

Abortions shot way up after Roe v. Wade. There's no reason to think they won't go down in response to its repeal.

I'm not making a states rights argument. I'm pointing out that the argument in favor of RvW based on the notion that its repeal wasn't "democratic" is absurd on its face. If you want to argue in favor of RvW on the basis of rights that government shouldn't be able to violate regardless of the will of voters, go ahead, but that's a fundamentally different argument than the one I was countering. Can you understand that distinction? I know it can be a bit subtle if you're used to treating this issue with a sledge hammer, but give it a try.

None of that is even remotely true. The Constitution was set up so religious positions and practices would not be forced on anyone. In the particular case of abortion, anti-abortion religious people's vote should count less because there are less of them. That is the essence of democracy. Minority rule is what is deeply, deeply undemocratic.

Of course we can see this in different ways but on this to me it looks as if in the battle between right and wrong, if there isn't a nice big floating blob of wrong in the mix, it's unacceptable to you, so **** it all. A flamboyant political flounce.

Comical. Yeah, there hasn't been any loosened legislation passed since then, and it wasn't called for by activists. That's great news...see, overturning Roe is no big deal. It won't change a thing.

All this fuss over nothing! :)

I think you're going way out on a limb if you think you can generalize about what the "strongly religious" believe. "Strongly religious" people aren't just rural fundamentalist Christians. I think you might find a substantial percentage of people who identify themselves as "strongly religious" have a wide range of views about social welfare and the obligations of the well-off to the poor. I also think you're making a mistake if you equate right-wing political views with some sort of religious practice.

Not true. Several parents have been convicted for failing to get medical care for their children including religiously bases reasons.

https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/in...ment-to-a.html

We have a church in my state that does not believe in medical care as "God will heal". Several parents have been convicted for failure to provide medical care:

2010: 2011: 2011: 2018

I'm not doing any more generalization than SG was.

You are missing the point: no one argues for a healthy baby to be aborted in the 9th month because 1) no doctor would do it, 2) no mother waits until the last month of pregnancy to abort her baby on a whim. A full term baby that had died in the womb or had a non-viable condition such as anencephaly or where the mother's life was at stake would be an induced BIRTH either vaginal or by C-section. Provide ONE case of a woman demanding or getting an abortion in her 9th month that did not meet one of these conditions. Go on.

Provide a case of a third semester abortion provided solely on "the whim of the mother." You say it is done so provide evidence.


Based on this:
Has it dawned on you that the number of recorded abortions shot up because the procedure was no longer illegal and clinics/ hospitals could keep records in contrast to the actual number of abortions being performed in back alleys and not recorded?

A 2014 survey can be safely dismissed. Back then Roe vs Wade was in force, and it was easy to say “abortion should be illegal” when that opinion would change nothing.

If a similar survey were held now, where female respondents, their daughters, family and friends could be directly effected by the SC ruling, I believe the change in voting patterns will be significant.

But even if not, i think the national interest should trump that of states in certain areas. Take immigration, for example. Most states would vote for restriction or abolition. The national government should control this, along with defence and foreign affairs. Most posting here would include body autonomy in this list.

Of course, as an Australian I would like that list to be longer.

And you still are not answering my question:
What " loosened legislation" since R v W has been demanded EXACTLY? Give me examples, Mr. Astaire.

I am not “Mr. Astaire,” but this answer is pretty easy.

The demand has been to enshrine the right to abortion as Federal law, which would mean the States that currently ban it would be forced to allow it. This demand has existed since before RvW and after RvW, it didn’t go away because the people who were demanding this knew how fragile the SCOTUS ruling was.

Beyond that, the demand has been to allow unrestricted abortion, which would mean States that cut off at 12/15/20 weeks would now be forced to allow them even beyond 24 weeks in some cases.

There has also been demand to make it covered by Medicaid and private insurance. Abortion coverage was a big debate during the ACA negotiations.

That doesn't answer my question since it's not an example of "ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" which is what Warp claimed led to the recent SC ruling. As you said "This demand has existed since before RvW and after RvW".

I asked specifically for "Since Roe v Wade in 1973, exactly what 'ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" have liberals made? "


.

That also has been a constant demand, not an "ever-increasing demand", either.

That is not an example of a "relaxed abortion law demand". It's a financial issue.

So my question has not been answered. But thanks for at least attempting it.:)

I do think “ever-increasing” is a bit of bad writing -overstating the matter for rhetorical effect. But the larger point buried in that is as you say: there is constant demand for easing restrictions on abortion. That hasn’t gone away. And if it ever happens, there will be demand to restrict it further. The circle of public political discourse.

Partially. But it’s also a way to increase access to abortion by scrapping the Hyde act restrictions on using federal funds to pay for abortion.

The poster is rather well-known for hyperbolic rhetoric. Which is why I, and others, call him on it.


But the demand has stayed the same: allowing a woman to make her own decisions over whether to continue her pregnancy without interference from the government.

Increase financial access, not for easing restrictions on abortions themselves.

When a new government restriction is opposed, it seems that some see the opposition to decreased rights as a demand for increased rights, apparently instantly forgetting that the default is not the new law but the absence of it.

You are confusing his point being a bad one with me not understanding it.

His example not being one of pure morality negates the proposition that it's a law based on morality.

Being for a minority moral position with practical concerns also being overwhelmingly against that position is not in any way defended by morality being a component of why some people support some other laws that have more than simply morality in support of them.

I do no such thing. The pragmatic implications are overwhelmingly against banning abortion. This isn't support for your point.

No, I again did no such thing. Your failure to account for the deficits in your argument and example are not me 'creating caveats'.



You're limiting the objection to banning abortion to only 'based on morals', which isn't very accurate, but it's also not supported with your example. Again, there are pragmatic reasons to outlaw animal abuse while banning abortion is based only on (very flawed) morals of a religious nature.

Read "The Lie" short story by Kurt Vonnegut.

This isn't worrisome at all...

From: Jezebel
In new hot mic audio obtained by Rolling Stone, Peggy Nienaber, executive director of Liberty Counsel’s D.C. ministry, bragged about praying with Supreme Court Justices at the court. Liberty Counsel authored an amicus brief in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case, in which the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the federal right to abortion last month....Several experts on judicial conflicts of interest and Supreme Court recusals who spoke to Rolling Stone are in agreement that what Nienabar described presents “a problem” and possible conflict of interest...

Representatives of Liberty Counsel are claiming that it didn't happen as described, but given what we know, it is more likely that it did happen than it didn't....

- Justice Thomas has a history of not recusing himself when he should (when he ruled on a case that his wife was involved with)

- Nienaber has posted several photos with her hanging out with supreme court justices and has called them 'friends'

- The organization has a history of 'targeting' justices

Better yet, you give us a precis.

This is wishful thinking.

Perhaps. But this too is no longer an argument on the basis of what people want. It's also not a constitutionally relevant argument.

It's only 8 pages.

Why not? Are you under the impression that constitutionality decisions are not subject to what some groups of people want?

Hyde amendment would be a good example of this, actually.

I actually had time to read it and although it was an enjoyable story, I fail to see what relevance it has to allowing SC candidates to be evasive.

What do you think the titular lie was, if not Eli's failure to disclose the rejection letter to his parents and his evasiveness around the subject of attending Whitehill School?


ETA: In case it needs to be said, Eli's allowing his parents to believe something that was not true parallels the SC candidates allowing Senators to believe they would not overturn Roe.

Although, again, the Democratic Senators who voted against those SC candidates weren't fooled.

psionl0 seems to think that Senators have some ability to force answers out of candidates in whatever form the Senator wants, or that Rep Senators cared that the candidates wanted to overturn Roe v Wade despite the "settled law affirmed over and over" talk.

I don't really believe Susan Collins, et al, was fooled either. Her crocodile tears are a show for plausible deniability.

I was just explaining the comparison with the short story.

They are not. Cite some evidence.

First off you don't get a religious exemption to let your child die of some treatable medical condition. Parents may plead to not be convicted but even then it's not an excuse the law allows.

Each state has different laws, maybe you are thinking of vaccine refusal.