The Roe Countdown

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I'm not absolutely certain, but I think there are already such laws, and they have been enforced. Of course, they don't involve "a sip of alcohol", but they do involve substance abuse that can cause birth defects. I'm sure I have heard of charges arising from substance abuse by pregnant women. I just don't know the exact terms of the laws.

Yes, there have been such cases. Weak evidence, essentially no presumption of innocence and resulting in jail sentences stemming from a miscarriage.

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

That's right. They're coming to eat your babies. Oh, wait. That was the Democrats, wasn't it? I think they were used as pizza toppings or something.

A customer favorite at Comet Ping Pong. Chef recommends.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

The naiveté of those who fail to acknowledge how extremest and irrational the Republican party have become seems boundless.

It isn't up to the Republican party. It's up to the courts. And the courts at all levels, across party and ideological lines, have ZERO interest in making their own decisions nonbinding.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

That's right. They're coming to eat your babies. Oh, wait. That was the Democrats, wasn't it? I think they were used as pizza toppings or something.

This gets so confusing.

no need to use hyperbole, it's adequate to state the plainly observable fact that Republicans are galloping to adopt laws to make the population poorer, less healthy, more incarcerated, and generally more miserable. It's an anti-prosperity ideology.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

That's right. They're coming to eat your babies. Oh, wait. That was the Democrats, wasn't it? I think they were used as pizza toppings or something.

This gets so confusing.

Gosh, I wonder if there's some middle ground between the real-world observation that Republicans have abandoned the rule of law and any pretense of integrity or principle and whatever stupid unrealistic exaggeration you pull out of your ass?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Turns out we have a whole long list of things that are potentially crimes for parents, but not for the childfree.

But according to some in the radical anti-abortion camp, not just crimes for parents but for potential parents. If birth control is outlawed, in part or in whole, it will be a crime for people not to become parents if they enjoy sex. Persons who are childfree, or wish to limit the size of their families, will be told once again that their reproductive organs are subject to state regulation and their sexual practices as well. A man is told by the state what he may wear on his genitals, and a women is told not only that, but what medication she can take, and that a procedure that might make her uterus unwelcoming to a zygote which does not at the time exist, and may in fact never exist, is a crime. The rights of a potential zygote which may never exist will overturn the rights of every woman who might at any time or place ever enjoy sexual congress, and those rights are not only the right to exist, but the right to be hosted.

Don't shrug this off. People right now are saying right now that they intend to pursue exactly these laws right now. This is not a slippery slope. It is a formerly active, working sluice ride that was closed but not dismantled.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

I think that what you are missing is that all (most?) of the Post article is premised on fetal (zygotic?) personhood. Once you allow that, it's a different game altogether and your entire analysis goes out the window like a Russian dissident.

Well, if Bob's quote was taken out of context, there's nothing I can do about that. I was responding to the quote as presented.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

It isn't up to the Republican party. It's up to the courts. And the courts at all levels, across party and ideological lines, have ZERO interest in making their own decisions nonbinding.

Haha... okay.

Here's you on Kavanaugh:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Roe v Wade isn't a law. And no, he has given no indication that he would and multiple indications that he wouldn't overturn it.

I don't know if you've been keeping up with current events, but it turns out those "indications" were lies.

Tell me more about how we can trust the Republican-controlled judiciary to act with integrity and consistency.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Haha... okay.

Here's you on Kavanaugh:


I don't know if you've been keeping up with current events, but it turns out those "indications" were lies.

Tell me more about how we can trust the Republican-controlled judiciary to act with integrity and consistency.

Anything controlled by Republicans have no integrity or consistency. They do what they want, when they want, with no regard to morality, ethics or public considerations. It's all about gaining the power to make the USA a white-minority ruled republic.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Haha... okay.

I don't think you actually understood my point at all.

If a court ruling cannot be relied upon to be effective even temporarily (ie, this is what the law is now, even if it will change in the future), then the court itself loses much of its power. And that's exactly what such a precedent of retroactive prosecution would mean: you cannot trust that a court saying it's OK to do something means it's actually OK to do it, ever. Court rulings are thus almost irrelevant.

Even under the theory that conservative justices are all cynical power-hungry tyrants, this doesn't make any sense. It is counter-productive even to the goals you claim they have. Justices would need to be monumentally stupid to follow that course of action, and it's not credible to believe that they all are.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I don't think you actually understood my point at all.

If a court ruling cannot be relied upon to be effective even temporarily (ie, this is what the law is now, even if it will change in the future), then the court itself loses much of its power. And that's exactly what such a precedent of retroactive prosecution would mean: you cannot trust that a court saying it's OK to do something means it's actually OK to do it, ever. Court rulings are thus almost irrelevant.

Even under the theory that conservative justices are all cynical power-hungry tyrants, this doesn't make any sense. It is counter-productive even to the goals you claim they have. Justices would need to be monumentally stupid to follow that course of action, and it's not credible to believe that they all are.

I agree with that on the most part, but am reminded that it is not just the judges who make those determinations. They will eventually, one presumes, and when they do, one can hope they express the principle in a clear and permanent way. But in the meantime, a state might attempt to claim otherwise and arrest, detain, even attempt to execute people in a manner that need not stop until judicial review occurs. I agree that even the SC judges I do not like are not that monumentally stupid, but I am not so convinced about the legislators of states that seem to be determined to turn our country into another El Salvador.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I don't think you actually understood my point at all.

If a court ruling cannot be relied upon to be effective even temporarily (ie, this is what the law is now, even if it will change in the future), then the court itself loses much of its power. And that's exactly what such a precedent of retroactive prosecution would mean: you cannot trust that a court saying it's OK to do something means it's actually OK to do it, ever. Court rulings are thus almost irrelevant.

Even under the theory that conservative justices are all cynical power-hungry tyrants, this doesn't make any sense. It is counter-productive even to the goals you claim they have. Justices would need to be monumentally stupid to follow that course of action, and it's not credible to believe that they all are.

When did Republicans start caring about public trust and integrity of the courts?

What fallout do you imagine would take place if next year the Supreme Court takes up a case challenging the legitimacy of Obergefell and subsequently strikes it down, thus contradicting what they stated in this ruling?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

When did Republicans start caring about public trust and integrity of the courts?

I'm not talking about Republicans. I'm talking about the courts themselves. And the fact that judges care about the power of the courts should be pretty damn obvious.

Quote:

What fallout do you imagine would take place if next year the Supreme Court takes up a case challenging the legitimacy of Obergefell and subsequently strikes it down, thus contradicting what they stated in this ruling?

You have lost track of the conversation, and don't even understand what we are talking about.

We aren't talking about the Supreme Court overturning a previous ruling. We are talking about whether someone can be criminally prosecuted for actions that were previously deemed legal by the Supreme Court but no longer are. The entire premise presupposes that some ruling has been overturned, so that's not in dispute. And I'm saying that nobody is going to be prosecuted, let alone convicted, of doing something that was legal at the time. If the action was deemed to be legal when it was taken, then a change in the court's ruling will not put that person in jeopardy. Even when the court wants to change a ruling, there is no incentive to make it retroactive like that, and plenty of reason not to. Because doing so will undermine the power of the court. That WOULD have massive fallout. And courts will avoid it, for the same reason that legislatures avoid retroactive criminalization.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I'm not talking about Republicans. I'm talking about the courts themselves. And the fact that judges care about the power of the courts should be pretty damn obvious.

What's not obvious is how any Republican in any position of authority perceives or worries about their power beyond what they can currently get away with.

Quote:

You have lost track of the conversation, and don't even understand what we are talking about.

You are absolutely correct. I did lose track of the specific issue being discussed. I apologize for the error.

Quote:

We aren't talking about the Supreme Court overturning a previous ruling. We are talking about whether someone can be criminally prosecuted for actions that were previously deemed legal by the Supreme Court but no longer are. The entire premise presupposes that some ruling has been overturned, so that's not in dispute. And I'm saying that nobody is going to be prosecuted, let alone convicted, of doing something that was legal at the time. If the action was deemed to be legal when it was taken, then a change in the court's ruling will not put that person in jeopardy. Even when the court wants to change a ruling, there is no incentive to make it retroactive like that, and plenty of reason not to. Because doing so will undermine the power of the court. That WOULD have massive fallout. And courts will avoid it, for the same reason that legislatures avoid retroactive criminalization.

I do agree that the courts would most likely not do that. What I think is an open question is whether or not Republican governors, legislatures, or law enforcement would attempt something like it.

You know, like what happened here, in what was an extrajudicial arrest of a woman who had committed no crime.

Clearly there's an appetite to punish women for having abortions whether or not the law allows for it, because for Republicans, cruelty is the point and there is no bottom.

[Warp12]

When are we expecting something concrete on this? Up until now it is just liberals, Biden included, wallowing in their tears over a "leak", and fear-mongering. I hate to see so many liberals dying this protracted death for no good reason. It seems premature.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Warp12

When are we expecting something concrete on this? Up until now it is just liberals, Biden included, wallowing in their tears over a "leak", and fear-mongering. I hate to see so many liberals dying this protracted death for no good reason. It seems premature.

The draft was authenticated by the Court, so it's pretty concrete.

Edited by sarge:

removed rule 12 violation

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I do agree that the courts would most likely not do that. What I think is an open question is whether or not Republican governors, legislatures, or law enforcement would attempt something like it.

Unfair prosecutions are nothing new, and are not unique to the issue of abortion. I don't see this as fundamentally changing anything.

Quote:

Clearly there's an appetite to punish women for having abortions whether or not the law allows for it, because for Republicans, cruelty is the point and there is no bottom.

Your model doesn't really work. A number of these laws explicitly provide no punishment at all to the women who obtain illegal abortions, only to the abortion providers.

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

The draft was authenticated by the Court, so it's pretty concrete. Your dream of seeing raped 11 year-olds forced to give birth is looking very much like it's about to become a reality.

There are those that celebrate the loss of rights and freedoms Or, pretty much anything, as long as 'the libs' are upset about it.

[Meadmaker]

When I signed that ballot initiative paperwork, I didn't actually read it. (This is a voter initiative in Michigan.) I've read it now, and I think they made a serious mistake in it. I hope that doesn't prevent its passage, and I hope similar initiatives don't make the same mistake.

The language includes a few paragraphs, but it's fairly straightforward. The right to abortion is guaranteed up until the point of viability. After that, it may be outlawed by legislative action. It isn't outlawed by the amendment, but the legislature has the option to outlaw it after fetal viability. In that section, the amendment says,



"allow state to prohibit abortion after fetal viability unless needed to protect a patient’s life or physical or mental health; "


The problem is the "mental health" section.

I know exactly what the right wing yappers will say about that. They will say that if a woman goes in and says, "I'm stressed about being pregnant", she can have an abortion right up until the baby is born.

A straightforward reading of the amendment would say that they will be right. I don't know if it's actually right, but based on my reading, it could be.

I'm still going to vote for it. I just worry how many other people will not, because of the inclusion of that clause, which effectively makes all abortions legal before birth. I think a bitter political strategy would have been to use language that basically guaranteed abortion rights up until the end of the first trimester, and left it up to the legislature after that.

The way I see it, the "life begins at conception" crowd isn't going to vote for any abortion rights, from any source. The "abortion on demand until birth" i.e. the Mumblethrax contingent would vote for any pro-abortion amendment. However, that's a pretty small contingent. The rest have to decide.

I think an awful lot of people, indeed most people, are probably in the camp that supports early abortions but opposes late term ones, except under extraordinary circumstances. Will this wording drive enough people into the "no" camp to doom the amendment? I don't know.

I think the key will be convincing them that it doesn't mean what I have characterized it as meaning. I suspect that, in reality, there would be enough wiggle room in the amendment to prevent late term abortions based on a flimsy excuse. As noted by others, those abortions are a very, very, small number of abortions, but I think getting people to vote based on the premise of, "This won't kill very many babies" is a tough sell.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Warp12

When are we expecting something concrete on this? Up until now it is just liberals, Biden included, wallowing in their tears over a "leak", and fear-mongering. I hate to see so many liberals dying this protracted death for no good reason. It seems premature.

I was going to ask the same thing, but without the dig at liberals.

[theprestige]

What gets me is that it seems both premature and also absurdly ad hoc and reactionary.

Progressives have been saying for decades that conservative judges were going to do this. But now they're reacting with utter surprise that it's happening. Like they're shocked that these jurists aren't standing by whatever they implied in their nomination hearings.

You'd think that with fifty years to prepare, they'd have shored up abortion rights in state law across the country. But no. Apparently it's a mad scramble to figure out what to do next. Did they not see this coming? Because they've been talking like they totally saw this coming.

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by theprestige

The point is that third term abortions in extremis are a red herring. Invoked to avoid discussing the real controversy: abortions of convenience.

You just demonstrated the point in practice. Forget about the third trimester for a moment. Should Meadmaker's scenario be legal?

First and second trimester abortions should be legal and nobody’s business but the women who have chosen to have one.

After the second trimester legislatures can make laws to limit reasons to have an abortion.

And they have, so I’m really confused by Meadmaker’s questions. The Supreme Court decided that abortion is a right under several clauses of the Constitution and legislatures filled in the third trimester details.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by autumn1971

First and second trimester abortions should be legal and nobody’s business but the women who have chosen to have one.

After the second trimester legislatures can make laws to limit reasons to have an abortion.

And they have, so I’m really confused by Meadmaker’s questions. The Supreme Court decided that abortion is a right under several clauses of the Constitution and legislatures filled in the third trimester details.

Does your idea of right and wrong, of what rights people do and do not have, begin and end with court rulings? If so, the coming reversal of Roe should suit you just fine.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by autumn1971

First and second trimester abortions should be legal and nobody’s business but the women who have chosen to have one.

After the second trimester legislatures can make laws to limit reasons to have an abortion.

And they have, so I’m really confused by Meadmaker’s questions. The Supreme Court decided that abortion is a right under several clauses of the Constitution and legislatures filled in the third trimester details.

Under the proposed Michigan amendment, the legislature would be able to limit reasons to have abortion, but they could not do so when it impacts the mental health of the pregnant woman.

In practice, does that mean if someone says they are stressed at the prospect of having a baby, they can have a late term abortion, regardless of what the legislature says?

I'm not sure of the answer to that question, but I know that the right wingers will say that under the proposed Michigan constitutional amendment, the answer will be "yes". In other words, they will say that in practice, abortions will be legal until birth.

Abortion supporters will have to be prepared to respond to that argument. I know that that argument will convince some people to vote no on the ballot initiative. I just don't know how many.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by theprestige

.....
You'd think that with fifty years to prepare, they'd have shored up abortion rights in state law across the country. But no. Apparently it's a mad scramble to figure out what to do next. Did they not see this coming? Because they've been talking like they totally saw this coming.

Once the SC decided Roe v. Wade, the states had no reason to pass laws to "shore up" a Constitutionally guaranteed right, any more than the states pass laws to protect freedom of the press. And the states where protection for abortion rights is most needed are the ones where such laws would have been least likely to pass anyway.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Once the SC decided Roe v. Wade, the states had no reason to pass laws to "shore up" a Constitutionally guaranteed right, any more than the states pass laws to protect freedom of the press. And the states where protection for abortion rights is most needed are the ones where such laws would have been least likely to pass anyway.

Cool story. Now do the paragraph you snipped. The one where you've known for decades that it was only a matter of time, and that the Roe protections wouldn't hold against a conservative majority on the bench.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by theprestige

What gets me is that it seems both premature and also absurdly ad hoc and reactionary.

Progressives have been saying for decades that conservative judges were going to do this. But now they're reacting with utter surprise that it's happening. Like they're shocked that these jurists aren't standing by whatever they implied in their nomination hearings.

You'd think that with fifty years to prepare, they'd have shored up abortion rights in state law across the country. But no. Apparently it's a mad scramble to figure out what to do next. Did they not see this coming? Because they've been talking like they totally saw this coming.

Point taken about "across the country," but it's not as if nobody thought of this either. As some have pointed out the states most in need of such laws are probably those in which such laws are unlikely to pass. Here in Vermont there is a state law, and come November there will be a vote on a Constitutional amendment to back it up.

e.t.a. actually, Vermont is not alone in this. Here is a handy map outlining the different state laws. A large number have "trigger laws" that will take effect if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, though. But if the November referendum carries, we will be the first state to have abortion rights in the Constitution.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Cool story. Now do the paragraph you snipped. The one where you've known for decades that it was only a matter of time, and that the Roe protections wouldn't hold against a conservative majority on the bench.

Like I said, the states where protection for right to choose was most needed would not have passed such laws. And California, New York etc. never needed them. And a federal law would have been blocked by the filibuster, as it is now.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by autumn1971

First and second trimester abortions should be legal and nobody’s business but the women who have chosen to have one.

After the second trimester legislatures can make laws to limit reasons to have an abortion.

And they have, so I’m really confused by Meadmaker’s questions. The Supreme Court decided that abortion is a right under several clauses of the Constitution and legislatures filled in the third trimester details.

Not every state limits 3rd trimester abortions. For example, in Vermont you can get one for any reason, or no reason. It would be difficult perhaps to find a physician to do it. Then again, you don't need to be a doctor to legally perform an abortion in that state, either. There are seven states without term limits on abortion.

With these kooky laws., it is no wonder there is a push by some to overturn Roe. It is like liberals went crazy with relaxed legislature, in some cases.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by theprestige

What gets me is that it seems both premature and also absurdly ad hoc and reactionary.

Progressives have been saying for decades that conservative judges were going to do this. But now they're reacting with utter surprise that it's happening. Like they're shocked that these jurists aren't standing by whatever they implied in their nomination hearings.

You'd think that with fifty years to prepare, they'd have shored up abortion rights in state law across the country. But no. Apparently it's a mad scramble to figure out what to do next. Did they not see this coming? Because they've been talking like they totally saw this coming.

Some notes:

This isn't the progressives doing this. We've been screaming in the wilderness for some time. The idea that the people calling the shots in the Democratic party are progressives is a right wing fever dream. These people would sooner threaten their own children than their donors.

I could come to grips with their past incompetence if they actually had a realistic plan to get out of this, but they don't because that would probably need labor organization as a base building block and there is no way that is happening because that's the one thing that would scare the money away.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Bob001

And a federal law would have been blocked by the filibuster, as it is now.

The current senate bill wasn't blocked by filibuster. It couldn't even get a majority, it was 51 to 49 against. If it had a majority, then a filibuster might have been used to stop it, but no filibuster was even needed to stop it.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Not every state limits 3rd trimester abortions. For example, in Vermont you can get one for any reason, or no reason. It would be difficult perhaps to find a physician to do it. Then again, you don't need to be a doctor to legally perform an abortion in that state, either. There are seven states without term limits on abortion.

With these kooky laws., it is no wonder there is a push by some to overturn Roe. It is like liberals went crazy with relaxed legislature, in some cases.

Damn, that is pretty extreme. To let women have complete freedom over their medical status and decisions is crazy.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Once the SC decided Roe v. Wade, the states had no reason to pass laws to "shore up" a Constitutionally guaranteed right, any more than the states pass laws to protect freedom of the press. And the states where protection for abortion rights is most needed are the ones where such laws would have been least likely to pass anyway.

Once the court issued Casey these states should have woken the **** up and done it if not only to counter Casey.

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Damn, that is pretty extreme. To let women have complete freedom over their medical status and decisions is crazy.

Conservatives (even the ones on this forum!) Are celebrating Big Government and the loss of rights and freedoms.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Unfair prosecutions are nothing new, and are not unique to the issue of abortion. I don't see this as fundamentally changing anything.

That doesn't undermine my point. In fact, it bolsters it.

If we acknowledge that lawless prosecutions for non-existent crimes exist and Republican law enforcement officials are willing to carry them out in the name of their ideology, then we have acknowledged that, if abortion is made illegal, women being arrested and charged with crimes for abortions they had prior to that isn't baseless fear-mongering.

It's a legitimate concern based on the observable behavior of Republicans.

Quote:

Your model doesn't really work. A number of these laws explicitly provide no punishment at all to the women who obtain illegal abortions, only to the abortion providers.

Current Texas law explicitly provides no punishment at all to women who obtain abortions.

They still arrested a woman who got an a abortion and charged her with murder.

[JoeMorgue]

I gotta say "We'll the law doesn't specifically let us do the things we are doing" is a weird flex in a sea of weird flexes.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by theprestige

What gets me is that it seems both premature and also absurdly ad hoc and reactionary.

Progressives have been saying for decades that conservative judges were going to do this. But now they're reacting with utter surprise that it's happening. Like they're shocked that these jurists aren't standing by whatever they implied in their nomination hearings.

You'd think that with fifty years to prepare, they'd have shored up abortion rights in state law across the country. But no. Apparently it's a mad scramble to figure out what to do next. Did they not see this coming? Because they've been talking like they totally saw this coming.

I don't necessarily disagree with your larger point, but I definitely enjoy that you acknowledged Republicans are unscrupulous liars while making it.

[JoeMorgue]

"It's your fault they lied to you" is another really, really weird flex.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Not every state limits 3rd trimester abortions. For example, in Vermont you can get one for any reason, or no reason. It would be difficult perhaps to find a physician to do it. Then again, you don't need to be a doctor to legally perform an abortion in that state, either. There are seven states without term limits on abortion.

With these kooky laws., it is no wonder there is a push by some to overturn Roe. It is like liberals went crazy with relaxed legislature, in some cases.

Yes, liberals certainly are out of control not doing the things that your fevered imagination thinks they're doing.

And by the way, if what you allege was really the concern for Republicans (spoiler alert: it's not), then the solution wouldn't be to ban abortion entirely, it would be to ban that particular aspect of abortion.

Your argument fails in both accuracy and logic.

[JoeMorgue]

Again it's another case of Liberal reality being expected to get weighed against Republican lies.

How many discussions in society right now boil down to:

One Side: Can we do something to solve or address or mitigate this actual problem that's actually happening in the real world right now?
Other Side: No, we first have to weight it against our lies, conspiracy theories, and crazy outlandish insane scenarios we can dream up that might happen.