The Roe Countdown

[Graham2001]

A report on a possible way to shut down the Texas SB8 law from of all people, the Libertarians...

Quote:

Senate Bill 8, the Texas anti-abortion law that went into effect this month, was expressly designed so that state officials could dodge accountability for the state's law in federal court. In a new legal filing, the U.S. Department of Justice has offered a potentially winning strategy for overcoming that legal ruse.

https://reason.com/2021/09/17/the-ju...-abortion-law/


As to why the Libertarians are approving of Federal action in this case, well, it has to do with the possibility that followers of the 'Movement without a name' (aka Critical Race Theory.) might use a similar 'ruse' to restrict speech rights to only those people who agree with them.


https://reason.com/2021/09/03/conser...rtion-law-too/

[The Atheist]

"Supreme Court To Hear Major Mississippi Abortion Case On Dec. 1"

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

"Supreme Court To Hear Major Mississippi Abortion Case On Dec. 1"

At least in my browser, clicking that link and then waiting several seconds once it loads I see the Back button become active. When I backspace I go to a page they somehow programmed to be there that was not before.

CNN is worse recently, but maybe my browser needs updating. If I go to CNN for a few minutes and not click anything on their page, I have to hit the back button 3 times to actually go back.

Sorry off topic.

Back on topic: I forgot Mississippi was even a state.

[cosmicaug]

Posted for relevance to theme of thread:

Justices’ views on abortion in their own words and votes.

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Abortion already is dominating the Supreme Court’s new term, months before the justices will decide whether to reverse decisions reaching back nearly 50 years. Not only is there Mississippi’s call to overrule Roe v. Wade, but the court also soon will be asked again to weigh in on the Texas law banning abortion at roughly six weeks.

The justices won’t be writing on a blank slate as they consider the future of abortion rights in the U.S. They have had a lot to say about abortion over the years — in opinions, votes, Senate confirmation testimony and elsewhere. Just one, Clarence Thomas, has openly called for overruling Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the two cases that established and reaffirmed a woman’s right to an abortion. Here is a sampling of their comments:
[...]

[Matthew Best]

https://www.oxygen.com/crime-news/br...ge-in-oklahoma

Prosectors in Oklahoma successfully argued to a jury this month that a woman who had a miscarriage was guilty of the manslaughter of her non-viable fetus.

She was sentenced to four years in prison.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

https://www.oxygen.com/crime-news/br...ge-in-oklahoma

Prosectors in Oklahoma successfully argued to a jury this month that a woman who had a miscarriage was guilty of the manslaughter of her non-viable fetus.

She was sentenced to four years in prison.

Damn you for posting that.

If you hadn't, I never would have heard of it, and now I'm absolutely ******* furious!

The sickness in America is beyond belief.

I don't believe there is another CECD nation that wouldn't have responded to that young woman with mental and physical help. In America, they throw her in jail.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Damn you for posting that.

If you hadn't, I never would have heard of it, and now I'm absolutely ******* furious!

The sickness in America is beyond belief.

I don't believe there is another CECD nation that wouldn't have responded to that young woman with mental and physical help. In America, they throw her in jail.

Sorry about that, The Atheist. Incidentally, what does "CECD" stand for?

[cosmicaug]

The Abortion Backup Plan No One Is Talking About

Quote:

So many states have restricted access to abortion so severely that people in large swaths of the country feel they have no options if they want to terminate a pregnancy. But technically, those who want an abortion still have options. It’s just that few have heard of them.


Pregnant people in Texas, or in any other U.S. state, can visit an array of websites that will mail them two pills—mifepristone and misoprostol—that will induce a miscarriage when used in the first trimester of pregnancy and possibly even later. The so-called self-managed abortion is therefore an option at least six weeks further into a pregnancy than the controversial new Texas law’s six-week “heartbeat” cutoff for an abortion at a clinic. Though people in other states have several websites to choose from, Texans can visit Aid Access, a website that provides the pills for $105 or less based on income.


Only 5 percent of Americans have heard of Aid Access, though, and only 13 percent have heard of Plan C, a website that provides information on different mail-order-abortion services by state, according to a new Atlantic/Leger poll. Some people may vaguely know that medication abortions exist, but don’t know the names of the organizations that mail them. However, most poll respondents said that they weren’t aware of any backup options for abortion if a clinic is not accessible. The poll surveyed a representative sample of 1,001 adults across the country from September 24 to September 26, and its results mirror my experiences interviewing two dozen random young Texans recently: None had heard of Aid Access, and the few who had heard of Plan C were confusing it with Plan B, the morning-after pill.


The results also jibe with the experiences of Plan C’s founders. Though they’ve seen a large increase in web traffic, particularly from Texas, since Texas’s abortion restrictions went into effect, “we know that the biggest challenge is to try to get this word out,” says Francine Coeytaux, one of the site’s co-founders. The doctor behind Aid Access, Rebecca Gomperts, told me that according to her own research, 60 percent of her clients did not know about abortion pills before they found her service.
[...]

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Sorry about that, The Atheist. Incidentally, what does "CECD" stand for?

OECD.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Sorry about that, The Atheist. Incidentally, what does "CECD" stand for?

Conglomeration for Economic Co-Operation and Development.

Very closely allied to the OECD, but more conglomerated.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Conglomeration for Economic Co-Operation and Development.

Very closely allied to the OECD, but more conglomerated.

The OECD is more organized though.

[Manger Douse]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

https://www.oxygen.com/crime-news/br...ge-in-oklahoma

Prosectors in Oklahoma successfully argued to a jury this month that a woman who had a miscarriage was guilty of the manslaughter of her non-viable fetus.

She was sentenced to four years in prison.

Was the miscarriage caused by her injecting methamphetamine? Because if so, I can see how that would be manslaughter

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Manger Douse

Was the miscarriage caused by her injecting methamphetamine? Because if so, I can see how that would be manslaughter

Well I can’t. How can it be manslaughter when it was a 14 week old foetus?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Manger Douse

Was the miscarriage caused by her injecting methamphetamine?

According to the report, no. It had an infection in the placenta that had travelled to the baby. The charge is insane, and the prison sentence even more insane.

[Manger Douse]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

According to the report, no. It had an infection in the placenta that had travelled to the baby.

From a unrinary tract infection, a cause of which can well be from using methamphetamines.

[Manger Douse]

Nm

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Manger Douse

Was the miscarriage caused by her injecting methamphetamine?

I don't think it's possible to say definitively what the cause of the miscarriage was.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Manger Douse

From a unrinary tract infection, a cause of which can well be from using methamphetamines.

Nonsense. You're talking about a biological impossibility.

In any case, use of meth is not predictive of higher risk of infection.

Quote:

Prenatal alcohol, drug, and cigarette use were not associated with chorioamnionitis, villitis, deciduitis, or maternal vascular underperfusion.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acer.13022

[Manger Douse]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Nonsense. You're talking about a biological impossibility.

I went by this study: Prevalence and management of lower urinary tract symptoms in methamphetamine abusers - can you tell me how I've got the conclusion "Lower urinary tract symptoms were highly prevalent among methamphetamine abusers." wrong?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Manger Douse

I went by this study: Prevalence and management of lower urinary tract symptoms in methamphetamine abusers - can you tell me how I've got the conclusion "Lower urinary tract symptoms were highly prevalent among methamphetamine abusers." wrong?

That's not what you said - here, let me quote you:

Quote:

From a unrinary tract infection, a cause of which can well be from using methamphetamines.

Correlation is not causation.

I'd be surprised if meth users didn't have a higher rate of all types of infection - I don't think hygiene is high on the list of things meth addicts concern themselves with.

[Manger Douse]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Correlation is not causation.

Sure, but that study showed that methamphetamine abuse does cause UTIs so I don't know where your "biological impossibility" claim comes from - could you explain it please?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Manger Douse

Sure, but that study showed that methamphetamine abuse does cause UTIs so I don't know where your "biological impossibility" claim comes from - could you explain it please?

It’s still not manslaughter

[Silly Green Monkey]

I get UTIs often, and I've never done meth. Maybe they're common in meth users because they're common in adult female humans with our shorter urethra?

[Manger Douse]

Originally Posted by lionking

It’s still not manslaughter

On that I agree, but this does seem like this person either deliberately or through gross negligence caused this termination via doing pins full of meth and I think that should maybe be against the law?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Manger Douse

Sure, but that study showed that methamphetamine abuse does cause UTIs...

It does no such thing - read it again, and get back to me if you trouble understanding it.

It looked pretty clear to me - here's the conclusion in its entirety:

Quote:

Lower urinary tract symptoms were highly prevalent among methamphetamine abusers. Our results imply that pathological dopaminergic mechanisms have a role in methamphetamine associated lower urinary tract symptoms. Moreover, first line anticholinergics and prompt combination with α-blockers conferred the most therapeutic benefit to nonresponders.

"Prevalent among" and "caused by" are two entirely different things. The study shows a lot of women who use meth get UTIs.

Originally Posted by Manger Douse

... so I don't know where your "biological impossibility" claim comes from - could you explain it please?

So, as well as not understanding a simple report, you don't know how the human body works.

Urinary infections are caused by bacteria. If you inhale a substance of any kind, it cannot introduce bacteria into a urinary tract.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Manger Douse

On that I agree, but this does seem like this person either deliberately or through gross negligence caused this termination via doing pins full of meth and I think that should maybe be against the law?

Breathtaking.

After 50 years of the War on Drugs failing, while sensible countries show that a health-centric focus actually works, it's great to see someone who still wants to criminalise the victim.

Bravo!

[The Atheist]

Going back to the OP, I'm picking the winner is "before 31/12/2022", because SCOTUS is hearing two cases before the end of the year: https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-...7560356da.html

I remain open to the possibility, but I'd stake everything I own on Minnesota's 15-week ban to be upheld, which to all intensive purposes* means Roe has been overturned, because introducing strict limits takes away the choice.

*yes that is deliberate, just in case Tofu reads it

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Going back to the OP, I'm picking the winner is "before 31/12/2022", because SCOTUS is hearing two cases before the end of the year: https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-...7560356da.html

I remain open to the possibility, but I'd stake everything I own on MinnesotaMississippi's 15-week ban to be upheld, which to all intensive purposes* means Roe has been overturned, because introducing strict limits takes away the choice.

*yes that is deliberate, just in case Tofu reads it

Fixed above.

[The Atheist]

Damn US states beginning with M!

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Manger Douse

Sure, but that study showed that methamphetamine abuse does cause UTIs so I don't know where your "biological impossibility" claim comes from - could you explain it please?

"Purpose:*We investigate the prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms in a cohort of methamphetamine abusers, and assess the therapeutic efficacy of α-blockers and anticholinergics."

The study does "investigate the prevalence", yes, but not the cause.

It compares the efficacy of a few variations of a therapy/treatment.

It does not even attempt to make the conclusion you've attributed to it. The word cause does not appear in the linked page at all.

I've no idea if meth has any mechanism for cause. My intuition leans more towards the behavioral, environmental, dietary, and other such variables commonly associated with many kinds of addiction. I would even guess this is more true in cultures that view addiction as a personal moral failure than a mental health disorder and thus feature greater emotional/social insecurity, loss of income, and other hardships (which typically only deepen the crisis fueling the perceived need for "escape").

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

"Purpose:*We investigate the prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms in a cohort of methamphetamine abusers, and assess the therapeutic efficacy of α-blockers and anticholinergics."

The study does "investigate the prevalence", yes, but not the cause.

It compares the efficacy of a few variations of a therapy/treatment.

It does not even attempt to make the conclusion you've attributed to it. The word cause does not appear in the linked page at all.

I've no idea if meth has any mechanism for cause. My intuition leans more towards the behavioral, environmental, dietary, and other such variables commonly associated with many kinds of addiction. I would even guess this is more true in cultures that view addiction as a personal moral failure than a mental health disorder and thus feature greater emotional/social insecurity, loss of income, and other hardships (which typically only deepen the crisis fueling the perceived need for "escape").

I mean, there is the whole "meth mouth" thing that is this in a nutshell. People think it is the act of smoking meth, but in reality it is that amphetamines, like several other drugs, reduce saliva plus that meth smokers have poor mental hygiene (and seem to drink Mountain Dew in large amounts) and add that up and not good for the teeth....

If there is a causation here it could be along those lines, which is boring and isn't all that helpful in creating a panic.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

People think it is the act of smoking meth, but in reality it is that amphetamines, like several other drugs, reduce saliva plus that meth smokers have poor mental hygiene...

Best typo I've seen in a long while.

[Crossbow]

I recently heard that the Supreme Court will be reviewing the new anti-abortion law that was recently enacted in Texas.

Anyway, I expect that the Supreme Court will invalidate this new law on some sort of technical issue (perhaps that weird enforcement mechanism, the short deadline, the lack of exceptions, etc.) as opposed to using this review as a rationale for an overturn of the famous Roe v. Wade decision.

[cosmicaug]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/28/us/politics/supreme-court-mississippi-abortion-law.html

Quote:

On Wednesday, when the court hears the most important abortion case in a generation, a central question will be whether the court’s conservative majority is prepared to erase that line. The case concerns a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks, long before fetal viability.

The court could overrule Roe entirely, allowing states to ban abortions at any point. But at least some justices may want to find a way to sustain the Mississippi law without overturning Roe in so many words, requiring them to discard the viability line and replace it with another standard that would allow a cutoff at 15 weeks.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

[Matthew Best]

The BBC says:

After two hours of oral arguments, the Roe v Wade precedent that has set a baseline of abortion rights through the US for nearly half a century appears to be in serious jeopardy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59495210

Quote:

the tenor of questioning by the justices over the course of the morning suggests that there is, at the very least, a five-justice majority willing to uphold Mississippi's ban on all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Chief Justice John Roberts, who is now at the ideological centre of the court, seemed comfortable with such a result which, in and of itself, would constitute a major blow to Roe's first-trimester abortion protections.

That may end up a best-case scenario for abortion-rights supporters at this point, however. Other justices, like Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, displayed an openness to a wholesale reversal of Roe, returning the question of abortion legality to individual states.

That's the outcome anti-abortion activists have been working toward for decades - and today it seems closer than ever to becoming a reality.

[The Atheist]

If I were offering odds, I'd have "Before December 2022" scorching hot favourite right now. I'd probably have it at $1.001, going by dear little Kavanaugh's tactics:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...08037679173e49

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

The BBC says:

Never mind the bloody Beeb, I say **** off!

This is my thread - how dare you beat me by several seconds?

America, turning the clock back, one state at a time.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

https://www.oxygen.com/crime-news/br...ge-in-oklahoma

Prosectors in Oklahoma successfully argued to a jury this month that a woman who had a miscarriage was guilty of the manslaughter of her non-viable fetus.

She was sentenced to four years in prison.

Seems like there's three separate issues here. The first is whether it can be a crime to kill a baby. The second is whether a (non-viable) fetus counts as a baby for the purpose of asking whether a crime has been committed. And the third is whether the mother in this particular case actually did something we'd consider responsible for leading to the death in question.

On the third issue, unless there's something important to the case that I'm missing, it seems like we're looking at a miscarriage of justice.

But it also seems to me like this is something of a red herring. The question of ignorance or negligence leading to death isn't unique to pregnancy, and doesn't really tell us anything new about the ethics of abortion.

The ethics of abortion hinge on the other two questions: Can it be a crime to kill a baby, and does a (non-viable) fetus count as a baby. This case came to trial because Oklahoma law answers yes to both of these questions.

[plague311]

Maybe this is the GOPs way of trying to up the birthrate in the U.S. Outlaw abortion and then all these people that don't want to have kids will be FORCED to have kids, should they get pregnant, no matter the circumstances.

All I think is going to happen is if they do overturn Roe you're going to see that problem get worse. No one wants to bring a child into a world where you can't even control your own body and where there's no social safety net. I can't believe people are surprised that my generation and younger are saying "**** that" to having kids. My daughter has already said there's no chance she's having kids. It's just not worth it to her to have offspring.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

If I were offering odds...

One of the relevant prediction markets ($1 payout if SCOTUS overturns MS abortion law) dropped from 30¢ to 16¢ during the oral argument livestream this a.m.

https://www.predictit.org/markets/de...tions-in-Dobbs