ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags abortion laws , political predictions , prediction threads , Roe v. Wade

View Poll Results: When will Roe v Wade be overturned
Before 31 December 2020 16 38.10%
Before 31 December 2022 1 2.38%
Before 31 December 2024 1 2.38%
SCOTUS will not pick a case up 6 14.29%
SCOTUS will pick it up and decline to overturn 18 42.86%
Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 15th May 2019, 05:17 PM   #41
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,572
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
It's my understanding that several appeals need to be granted by lower courts first.
I just can't.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 05:41 PM   #42
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,261
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Why would that sort of thing change Kavanaugh's mind?
I don't think it would change anyone's mind at SCOTUS, but it could cause an enormous backlash at the polls, giving the Dems a chance to cement legislation in place, or appoint additional judges.

Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
Also, TA, why are you borderline gloating in your OP?
I have no idea how you got that impression - my last sentence was:

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
... prevent the absurd attacks on women's rights by white men.
I am not a fan of white - or any other shade thereof - men obstructing or denying women's rights. I figure 10,000 years of it is enough.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 06:45 PM   #43
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,383
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
I just can't.
If you can't respond to a differing opinion, maybe you shouldn't be on a discussion board.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 06:49 PM   #44
The Nimble Pianist
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco, California Republic
Posts: 822
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
I just can't.
What can't you?

Cavemonster correctly mentioned that a plaintiff of a future challenge to the law must suffer what the court calls damages. Without damages there is no standing to challenge, and without that the case gets dismissed. You still haven't actually answered his (good) questions.
The Nimble Pianist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 06:52 PM   #45
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,351
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
You seem to be happy with the idea of the US toally going down the tube.
Just remember this:The undertow of that happening will impact a lot of countries..including Kiwiland.

You're talking about Roe v Wade? If so, that will not affect us here, because

1. We have Nationwide Laws, our Provinces have no power to go against National laws

2. A woman's absolute right to abortion is supported by both major parties and most of the minor ones. The last one to have an anti-abortion policy was the Christian Heritage party, they were never more than a one percenter, and fell by the wayside shortly after their leader, Graeme Capill was convicted of kiddie fiddling.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
The Mueller Report must be released to Congress in full - If Trump has nothing to hide, then he should also have nothing to fear!
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 06:58 PM   #46
The Nimble Pianist
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco, California Republic
Posts: 822
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Nobody got arrested under Prop 8 in order to make marriage equality a thing, for example.

Because this had nothing to do with criminal enterprise. Individuals who sought to sue the state for their lack of gay-marriage licenses had to first attempt receiving marriage licenses. Until they did so, AND they were denied, they couldn't have standing in court.
The Nimble Pianist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 08:04 PM   #47
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,572
Originally Posted by The Nimble Pianist View Post
What can't you?

Cavemonster correctly mentioned that a plaintiff of a future challenge to the law must suffer what the court calls damages. Without damages there is no standing to challenge, and without that the case gets dismissed. You still haven't actually answered his (good) questions.
Yeah, I did, and you've added elements that don't exist in his questions. "I can't" was in response to the repetition of something I'd already explained as if it was something new. In other words, I'm not going to continue explaining to someone determined not to comprehend my posts. It's a game I've tried of late to avoid.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 08:08 PM   #48
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,342
I have faith in the backlash.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 08:13 PM   #49
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,358
I'm going to classify "overturned" as "allowed a set of restrictions difficult enough to make abortions too emotionally and monetarily costly for the largest majority of pregnancy-capable women in the country.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 08:33 PM   #50
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,550
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
When does Roe v Wade get thrown out?
Never. You're being played by the media. Again.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 08:37 PM   #51
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,550
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
When does Roe v Wade get thrown out?

Anyone with evidence Trump paid for an abortion needs to step right up, because I'd see that as the only chance left to prevent the absurd attacks on women's rights by white men.
I seriously only read the first line of the OP. It took me a few minutes to stomach the courage to read the rest and I came across this gem. When I said you're being played by the media, that was a bit of an understatement.

This is quite something to behold. Skeptics are so gullible and they're proud of it. It's sad, really.

Last edited by Baylor; 15th May 2019 at 08:53 PM.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 09:08 PM   #52
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,550
Originally Posted by AnonyMoose View Post
Yup, I think Roe v Wade is going to be toast.

I never once thought that could be a possibility in the 21st century, until recently.

As for the timeline, I think it depends on when Ruth Bader Ginsburg can no longer fill her seat. The hope is that she'll outlast Trump, but taking her age and health into consideration, that's not likely if he gets another term.

I think there's another middle-ground supreme court justice that's coming up for retirement soon too, besides RBG?

If that happens during Trump's time, American women haven't got a hope in hell.

Expect all hell to break loose soon after.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 09:17 PM   #53
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,550
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
A lot of this is based on TA's past history; he has done a LOT of USA bashing in the past.
Many "international" members do. And it's all based on ignorance, bigotry, and gullibility.

The only thing I've learned from this forum is how the US is perceived from outsides its borders. It's really amazing how ignorant the rest of the world is on US affairs.

Evidence: Opening Post, Post #22

Last edited by Baylor; 15th May 2019 at 09:25 PM.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 10:59 PM   #54
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 25,816
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
A lot of this is based on TA's past history; he has done a LOT of USA bashing in the past.
And, yeah, I think that repealing RvW would be a disaster;but it would be a political disaster for the GOP. They finally got what they wanted;and will find out it isnot what a lot of Amereicans want.
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
That's what they got with Trump, too. They don't seem to give a single **** what most Americans want.
If they can be assured of 40% of highly motivated voters who are willing to turn out and vote regardless then IMO the GOP doesn't need a majority.

Of course there are likely many people who are pro-choice who will continue to vote GOP even if Roe vs Wade is overturned because it's not sufficiently important to them and/or they support other GOP policies and want to see them implemented.
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2019, 11:59 PM   #55
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,261
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
Never. You're being played by the media. Again.
Given three states virtually outlawing abortion, including women who have been raped, you're clearly just trolling.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 12:12 AM   #56
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,550
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Given three states virtually outlawing abortion, including women who have been raped, you're clearly just trolling.
"Virtually"

Yup, you fell for it again, hook, line, and sinker. The most stringent of those legislation, Alabama's, isn't likely to go into effect. And it might be "unenforceable" as the Governor put it.

Stop with the histrionics and stop being a sucker.

eta: Also, stop parroting "meh white men!" The one Supreme Court Justice likely to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade is black. "White Men" Justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Roberts all said Roe v. Wade is "settled." The wild card is Latina woman Sotomayer. Don't regurgitate Left Wing rags on here and expect not to get called out on it.

Last edited by Baylor; 16th May 2019 at 01:16 AM.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 12:59 AM   #57
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,931
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
"Virtually"

Yup, you fell for it again, hook, line, and sinker. The most stringent of those legislation, Alabama's, isn't likely to go into effect. And it might be "unenforceable" as the Governor put it.

Stop with the histrionics and stop being a sucker.

eta: Also, stop parroting "meh white men!" The one Supreme Court Justice likely to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade is black. "White Men" Justices Gorsuch and Roberts both said Roe v. Wade is "settled." The wild card is Latina woman Sotomayer. Don't regurgitate Left Wing rags on here and expect not to get called out on it.
why are you supporting a law that you say might be unenforceable?
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 01:01 AM   #58
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,550
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
why are you supporting a law that you say might be unenforceable?


eta:


Last edited by Baylor; 16th May 2019 at 01:10 AM.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 01:53 AM   #59
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,931
so you are.
nice to know
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 02:04 AM   #60
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,451
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
This will probably be a factor in 2020 too, so the US will have a Trump flavoured SCOTUS for the next generation at least.

“Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”
The President.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 02:51 AM   #61
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,868
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
When does Roe v Wade get thrown out?

With a SCOTUS now built on solidly anti-abortion conservatives, I can see a 5-4 vote devolving legislation to states happening in the very near future.

I reckon the Red Team will be looking for a judgement before the 2020 election, so my pick is within one year. I believe there's a case of one state in the courts right now, so should be an easy one for SCOTUS to pick up, since every judge so far has denied legislative attempts to block abortion.

Pence's words - "Roe will be overturned within our lifetime" looking fairly prophetic about now.

Anyone with evidence Trump paid for an abortion needs to step right up, because I'd see that as the only chance left to prevent the absurd attacks on women's rights by white men.
With these poll numbers overturning Roe v Wade might be a great thing for USA.

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gal...rrl5ccpy2w.png

https://content.gallup.com/origin/ga...mcah12ztdw.png

Republicans would be locked out of federal government for a decade, allowing for serious house-cleaning. Add the effect of overturning their gerrymanderign and other laws slanting the electoral field that way and the decade may well turn into two decades, opening up the field to a new generation of different politics.

That's why I picked the last option, the Supreme Court will not overturn the ruling if it ever comes to that.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 04:32 AM   #62
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,351
A couple of questions

Is there any law preventing a pregnant woman from travelling out of state or to Canada to get an abortion?

What is there to prevent a private hospital or abortion clinic in a state where abortion is legal from advertising for clients from states where abortion is illegal? They could do so via the internet.

NOTE: the domain http://pregnancytermination.com/ is available for purchase
__________________
#THEYAREUS
The Mueller Report must be released to Congress in full - If Trump has nothing to hide, then he should also have nothing to fear!
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 04:38 AM   #63
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,569
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
You don't agree that the OP almost has a giddy tone to Roe being overturned? Up until his statement about taking away women's rights I would have guessed that he was almost excited that they're being taken away.
Because it's hip to hate the United States.

Now not products of the United states, because that would mean not enjoying most media and a hell of a lot of products and that would require actual sacrifice.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 04:40 AM   #64
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,451
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
You seem to be happy with the idea of the US toally going down the tube.
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
Also, TA, why are you borderline gloating in your OP?
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
You don't agree that the OP almost has a giddy tone to Roe being overturned? Up until his statement about taking away women's rights I would have guessed that he was almost excited that they're being taken away.

Can any of you be specific about which bit? Cos I just can't see it at all.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 04:56 AM   #65
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,890
I voted for the early option.

The Alabama law goes into effect in six months. It will of course be immediately challenged, probably with multiple lawsuits. Since the law violates existing Supreme Court precedent, it will be thrown out by a federal district court, or conceivably upheld by the district court, but enforcement put on hold pending an appeal. Since there will be multiple suits, at least one will result in the law being overturned by a district court.

At that point, the state will appeal. Normally the appeals process takes a long time, a couple of years, but if the matter to be settled has a time limit, the Supreme Court can pick it up for immediate hearing. I think in this case, they will, which means that the case could be heard by the Court by early next year. Normally, the opinions in major cases wait until the end of the term, but, once again, they can rush this one. It's not like these guys haven't thought about it. They could write their opinions today, and just fill in some of the details with the specific case when it gets to them.


How they rule is less obvious to me, but I would expect a 5-4 vote that overturns Roe v. Wade. Some people are expecting the court to make a more limited ruling, and that is not impossible, but these laws were written specifically for the purpose of challenging Roe v. Wade. The court could issue a more limited ruling, but I don't think they will. I don't think any of them will see any reason to wait. They know it will be back.

Well, how do they vote? Thomas and Alito certainly vote to overturn. Gorsuch has made a big deal about original intent and opposing judicial activism. He votes to overturn. Kavanaugh and Roberts could be surprise votes, but I don't expect it. I think it's 5-4, unless Ginsburg retires, in which case it's 5-3 or 6-3, depending on timing. A few years back the Republicans didn't want to vote on a new Supreme Court justice during a presidential election year, but I'm guessing they'll decide it's ok this time around.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 04:57 AM   #66
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,868
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
A couple of questions

Is there any law preventing a pregnant woman from travelling out of state or to Canada to get an abortion?

What is there to prevent a private hospital or abortion clinic in a state where abortion is legal from advertising for clients from states where abortion is illegal? They could do so via the internet.

NOTE: the domain http://pregnancytermination.com/ is available for purchase
The issue is those who couldn't afford such trips. There are surprisingly many in the US. Furthermore, states could pass laws that make it illegal to help someone make the trip to get an abortion, similar arrangements exist in Europe regarding euthanasia.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 05:33 AM   #67
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,617
Alternative argument...

Regardless of your position on abortion, Roe is a bad decision and should be overturned
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 05:45 AM   #68
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,036
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
You seem to be happy with the idea of the US toally going down the tube.
Just remember this:The undertow of that happening will impact a lot of countries..including Kiwiland.
Look it will be a victory for republicans all over the country, they have worked for years for this and cutting taxes on the wealthy. This should be viewed like the increased income inequality as the work of a generation of great conservative leadership.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 05:52 AM   #69
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,036
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
It should be noted that overturning Roe v. Wade will not make abortion illegal.
Not immediately, that will be hours later when they pass federal anti abortion laws, like how texas redistricted immediately after they removed the voting rights act. Easily within a year if the republicans control the house and senate.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 05:55 AM   #70
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,036
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I'm going to classify "overturned" as "allowed a set of restrictions difficult enough to make abortions too emotionally and monetarily costly for the largest majority of pregnancy-capable women in the country.
But that is already the case. I expect an outright saying that states can ban abortion.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 05:56 AM   #71
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,036
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
A couple of questions

Is there any law preventing a pregnant woman from travelling out of state or to Canada to get an abortion?
Yes that is in some of the laws being passed. Or rather if she is found to have done that it is a major felony.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 06:08 AM   #72
cosmicaug
Muse
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 985
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Yes that is in some of the laws being passed. Or rather if she is found to have done that it is a major felony.
That would be the Georgia version and I believe that that is not actually in the law. Instead, stories about this law have extrapolated from the fact that the Georgia law creates fetal personhood.

It is not accepted that that it is so that murder penalties would apply:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/05/11/could-miscarriages-land-women-jail-lets-clarify-these-georgia-alabama-abortion-bills/
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/georgia-heartbeat-bill-will-not-imprison-women-who-have-abortions/

However, I am not convinced that you can create fetal personhood without ultimately attaching the legal implications of murder to the killing of a fetus. The fact that I am unconvinced may be entirely due to my ignorance as IANAL.
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 06:09 AM   #73
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,408
I can't make heads or tails of this poll. Where's my planet X option?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 06:17 AM   #74
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,036
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
That would be the Georgia version and I believe that that is not actually in the law. Instead, stories about this law have extrapolated from the fact that the Georgia law creates fetal personhood.

It is not accepted that that it is so that murder penalties would apply:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/05/11/could-miscarriages-land-women-jail-lets-clarify-these-georgia-alabama-abortion-bills/
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/georgia-heartbeat-bill-will-not-imprison-women-who-have-abortions/

However, I am not convinced that you can create fetal personhood without ultimately attaching the legal implications of murder to the killing of a fetus. The fact that I am unconvinced may be entirely due to my ignorance as IANAL.
Why would this be so weird though, Ireland had such laws until recently.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 06:18 AM   #75
welshdean
Rugby World Cup
        2019
   CHAMPIONS
 
welshdean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,111
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
<snip>

Just remember this:The undertow of that happening will impact a lot of countries..including Kiwiland.

Only in theocracies.
The civilised nations of the world resolved this matter generations ago.
__________________
"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."
Carl Sagan 1934 - 1996 RIP
welshdean is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 06:20 AM   #76
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,036
Originally Posted by welshdean View Post
Only in theocracies.
The civilised nations of the world resolved this matter generations ago.
Not the UK then, see Northern Ireland.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 06:22 AM   #77
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,988
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
All I see in TA's post is acknowledgement of the stark reality that the arch-conservative scum are close to a win on the issue of abortion, a win that will bring misery to millions of women in this country.
We are sorry for all the misery women will have to endure, from not killing their babies.

I'm just wowed by the media's ability to change thinking on this topic.

40 years ago, not killing babies would be the mainstream logic. And abortions on demand would be the crazy kook logic.

Today: It seems as though those who are for not killing babies, are the kooks.

How did that happen?
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 06:25 AM   #78
cosmicaug
Muse
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 985
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
That would be the Georgia version and I believe that that is not actually in the law. Instead, stories about this law have extrapolated from the fact that the Georgia law creates fetal personhood.

It is not accepted that that it is so that murder penalties would apply:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/05/11/could-miscarriages-land-women-jail-lets-clarify-these-georgia-alabama-abortion-bills/
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/georgia-heartbeat-bill-will-not-imprison-women-who-have-abortions/

However, I am not convinced that you can create fetal personhood without ultimately attaching the legal implications of murder to the killing of a fetus. The fact that I am unconvinced may be entirely due to my ignorance as IANAL.
Why would this be so weird though, Ireland had such laws until recently.
I don't understand your comment. I haven't suggested weirdness about anything. I pointed out that this aspect, the criminalization of out of state abortions, does not appear to be a part of any of the laws under discussion.
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 06:27 AM   #79
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,036
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
I don't understand your comment. I haven't suggested weirdness about anything. I pointed out that this aspect, the criminalization of out of state abortions, does not appear to be a part of any of the laws under discussion.
Except when the laws themselves were under discussion.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2019, 06:31 AM   #80
cosmicaug
Muse
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 985
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I voted for the early option.

The Alabama law goes into effect in six months. It will of course be immediately challenged, probably with multiple lawsuits. Since the law violates existing Supreme Court precedent, it will be thrown out by a federal district court, or conceivably upheld by the district court, but enforcement put on hold pending an appeal. Since there will be multiple suits, at least one will result in the law being overturned by a district court.

At that point, the state will appeal. Normally the appeals process takes a long time, a couple of years, but if the matter to be settled has a time limit, the Supreme Court can pick it up for immediate hearing. I think in this case, they will, which means that the case could be heard by the Court by early next year. Normally, the opinions in major cases wait until the end of the term, but, once again, they can rush this one. It's not like these guys haven't thought about it. They could write their opinions today, and just fill in some of the details with the specific case when it gets to them.


How they rule is less obvious to me, but I would expect a 5-4 vote that overturns Roe v. Wade. Some people are expecting the court to make a more limited ruling, and that is not impossible, but these laws were written specifically for the purpose of challenging Roe v. Wade. The court could issue a more limited ruling, but I don't think they will. I don't think any of them will see any reason to wait. They know it will be back.

Well, how do they vote? Thomas and Alito certainly vote to overturn. Gorsuch has made a big deal about original intent and opposing judicial activism. He votes to overturn. Kavanaugh and Roberts could be surprise votes, but I don't expect it. I think it's 5-4, unless Ginsburg retires, in which case it's 5-3 or 6-3, depending on timing. A few years back the Republicans didn't want to vote on a new Supreme Court justice during a presidential election year, but I'm guessing they'll decide it's ok this time around.
Yes, but there exists also a possibility that the court will simply choose not to hear the case at all.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/us/politics/supreme-court-abortion.html
Quote:
Lower courts will almost certainly strike down the Alabama statute and other direct bans on abortion, like the ones that bar the procedure after doctors can detect what the measures call a “fetal heartbeat,” which happens at around six weeks of pregnancy. The lower courts will have little choice, as controlling Supreme Court precedents prohibit outright bans on abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, usually at about 24 weeks.

Since the Supreme Court controls its own docket, it can simply deny review after lower courts strike down laws squarely at odds with Roe.


[...]


But Justice Kavanaugh has also exhibited some restraint in his first months on the court, and he may not be eager for an immediate confrontation with the basic issue when intermediate steps are available.

There are three members of the court — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch — who seem less patient. In February, Justice Thomas wrote that Roe was among the court’s “most notoriously incorrect decisions.” He gave one other example of such a ruling: Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1857 decision that said black slaves were property and not citizens.

It takes only four votes to add a case to the court’s docket, meaning that either Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Kavanaugh could force the court to confront the ultimate fate of a constitutional right to abortion when a case concerning the Alabama law or a similar one reaches the court.

“What we don’t know,” Professor Franklin said, “is the extent to which either Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Kavanaugh feels sufficiently bound by 50 years of precedent, or by a desire not to be viewed by the public as discarding that precedent for political-ideological reasons, to pull back from the brink.”
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.