The Roe Countdown

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No, you aren't understanding me. I'm saying that you're assuming bad faith on the part of the judges.

He didn't assume anything, he backed it up with evidence you are ignoring.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I don't give a crap about the motives of the electorate. The can and will try to get judges appointed in the hopes that they will vote their way on every issue. Conservatives succeeded this time, but it's not like liberals aren't trying to do exactly the same thing. Nor does being in the minority ever stop people from trying to exert political influence. Why even should it? So how is it even relevant whether it was a majority or a minority that succeeded this time?

That is not an accurate description of what happened.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why should "precedent" protect a wrong decision? And why does a right decision need "precedent" to protect it? How long must a wrong decision stand before it can be overturned? Is overturning a right decision OK if you waited long enough to do it?

If RvW was decided wrongly, then that's compelling reason to overturn it. The current pending decision argues that it was. If the current decision's argument on that point is wrong, if RvW was decided correctly, then that's an argument against the current decision on its merits. If that's what you believe, then make that argument. You don't need precedent, or "minority opinion", in order to do that.

Why did all the justices voting to overturn Roe lie in their confirmation hearings? Their lies have been played on the news and social media where we could see for ourselves.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

They are doing exactly what their records indicated they would do. They are doing exactly what they were appointed to do. It's only bad faith if those justices believe that they are supposed to be impartial. The only time they were dishonest about it was during their confirmation hearings.

Honestly, who would appoint a Supreme Court justice who can't remember what is in the First Amendment? Not someone who cares about upholding what is in the Constitution.


Who is saying it is a wrong decision? It's the justices who were appointed to say it's a wrong decision. Justices who were appointed by representatives of a minority who disagree with the majority of the people. You say you don't care about the motives of the electorate, but you are relying on their popular opinion to decide what is a wrong decision, in this case.

Precedent protects established rights from political whims and is a pillar of the legal system. There are tons of articles out there about why it is important, for example.

Have you read about Dobbs? I have been. Can you tell me what is significantly different about this case that it warrants overturning Roe?

This ^

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I don't think there's any secret that a significant number of people believe the latter, and have believed that since the day the ruling was issued.

Most of those people are now Republicans.

I knew anti-abortion was a one issue vote getter since Karl Rove said so but I just saw a university political science lecture showing it was Jerry Falwell who first adopted it as a primary political platform. He wasn't even anti-abortion at the time if you can believe that.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Uhhhmmm.....yeah. Well, I would hate to subject you to more bad faith, so I'll just leave it be, and remove the subscription from the thread.

For people interested enough to follow up on facts, the assertions above can be checked. I think you will find if you investigate that there is some interesting interpretation going on.


Don't forget to vote.

Not to ruin your dramatic exit, but my point was that it's evidence of bad faith arguments from the Justices like Alito, not from you. I fully believe you believe your own arguments. Not that I think they have merit, but that your reflex centrism is honest.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Given that the ruling spends so much time directly addressing Roe, I would hardly call it ignoring precedent. ....

Oooouu, look at all the double spaced wide margined papers in Alito's tentative ruling. Surely that makes his position valid.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by TomB

I'm not asking this to make a point, but rather because I really don't know the answer....

When women in the service need an abortion, do they go off base or do they do it on base? (I think most bases have medical facilities. At least the larger ones do.)

Are military doctors subject to the laws of the state when they perform procedures on base? Or are they only subject to federal law?

Would a woman in the service be allowed to travel to a different base for medical care not available on her home base?

Federal law, it would need to be a military or VA hospital, not just a military doctor and patient.

OSHA is the same way, state laws like WISHA and CalOSHA apply in state but the military hospitals and the VA hospital are subject to OSHA law, not the state versions.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Unless rules have changed recently, it appears that a woman generally can only obtain abortion services at military facilities when her life is in danger or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. ...

Quote:

The U.S. military does not permit abortions at military medical facilities or using military insurance.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...bortion-policy

Given the Hyde Amendment, that makes sense.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Why did all the justices voting to overturn Roe lie in their confirmation hearings? Their lies have been played on the news and social media where we could see for ourselves.

Because they didn't lie

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I knew anti-abortion was a one issue vote getter since Karl Rove said so but I just saw a university political science lecture showing it was Jerry Falwell who first adopted it as a primary political platform. He wasn't even anti-abortion at the time if you can believe that.

Actually, it appears that the evangelicals weren't particularly opposed to abortion before and even after Roe.

Quote:

The history of that movement, however, is more complicated. White evangelicals in the 1970s did not mobilize against Roe v. Wade, which they considered a Catholic issue. They organized instead to defend racial segregation in evangelical institutions, including Bob Jones University.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...1970s-00031480

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Actually, it appears that the evangelicals weren't particularly opposed to abortion before and even after Roe.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...1970s-00031480

Goes with what I saw in the political science history lecture I watched a couple of days ago. Jerry Falwell saw an opening and pounced.

I think it's on this one, lecture 2. (Could have been lecture 1.)

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[The Atheist]

I can hear the Republicans chortling with glee from here as they dictate what women may and may not do with their bodies.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/oklah...b0edd2d01310f7

But hey, there is an upside - more white kids, making it harder for the dagos, spics, coons and ragheads to take over.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cpac-...b0933e7362f5c8

Is it just me, or does the openly fascist Viktor Orban look like he's about to perform oral sex on Matt Schlapp?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I can hear the Republicans chortling with glee from here as they dictate what women may and may not do with their bodies.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/oklah...b0edd2d01310f7

But hey, there is an upside - more white kids, making it harder for the dagos, spics, coons and ragheads to take over.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cpac-...b0933e7362f5c8

Is it just me, or does the openly fascist Viktor Orban look like he's about to perform oral sex on Matt Schlapp?

But that upside is an upside-downside, since it's almost certain that it will be poor people who lack the clout, travel ability and resources to get illegal abortions which rich white women can. The whole issue of the so called "replacement theory" is that those jiving enwords and dusky fertile foreigners will swarm in and swamp us gormless spermless whiteys. The right wing wackos can't keep their stories straight.

The decline in the white birth rate is not due to an increase of abortion, which has gone steadily down for decades. It's due to a decrease in initial pregnancy.

Of course it depends a little on how you slice your statistics. In gross numbers, far more whites have abortions than other ethnic groups, simply because there are far more of us. In terms of percentage of pregnancies ending in abortion, whites are at the bottom, blacks much much higher, other groups in between. Ending abortion will increase all the live births of course, but of those, a much greater percentage will be of minorities, especially blacks. Not what the "replacement" idiots would want, one might think.

Of course, I suppose once they're born they can prevent them from voting and shoot them if they get too uppity. Test marketing on that seems to be promising.

And of course since black infant mortality is about twice that of white, and maternal mortality about 3 and a half times, (including from ectopic pregnancy, a leading cause for black women but not for white, and a favorite target of anti-abortion ignorami), we still have a chance to even the playing field through bad medical care.

So buck up, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Is it just me, or does the openly fascist Viktor Orban look like he's about to perform oral sex on Matt Schlapp?

Surely you are being an alarmist?

[Segnosaur]

Here's an interesting angle...

From: Yahoo News
Republican Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt on Sunday hinted at retribution for Indigenous Oklahomans should doctors readily perform abortions on tribal lands if Roe v. Wade is overturned. But he was stepping outside the boundaries of state authority, according to Indigenous legal experts.
...
Under a 1953 federal law, there are six states — Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon and Wisconsin — that have jurisdiction over criminal law on reservations. Some other states, including Florida, Idaho, Montana and Washington, later obtained criminal law jurisdiction on reservations, but a 1968 law prevented any more states from doing so without tribal permission.

I wonder how well that would work, if various indigenous set up abortion clinics on their lands to offer services to, well, everyone. (The article does point out that the law is very murky, especially if a non-native doctor was providing services to a non-native patient. I'm sure there would be court challenges a-plenty.)

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Here's an interesting angle...

From: Yahoo News
Republican Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt on Sunday hinted at retribution for Indigenous Oklahomans should doctors readily perform abortions on tribal lands if Roe v. Wade is overturned. But he was stepping outside the boundaries of state authority, according to Indigenous legal experts.
...
Under a 1953 federal law, there are six states — Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon and Wisconsin — that have jurisdiction over criminal law on reservations. Some other states, including Florida, Idaho, Montana and Washington, later obtained criminal law jurisdiction on reservations, but a 1968 law prevented any more states from doing so without tribal permission.

I wonder how well that would work, if various indigenous set up abortion clinics on their lands to offer services to, well, everyone. (The article does point out that the law is very murky, especially if a non-native doctor was providing services to a non-native patient. I'm sure there would be court challenges a-plenty.)

I think it could depend on whether the law makes leaving the state for an abortion a crime. If so, then the very thing that makes it legal to do makes it illegal to seek. The possibility of border guards and pregnancy checks, with of course rampant profiling, and the like, is one of the possible unintended consequences of all this.

[thaiboxerken]

I don't agree that it would be an unintended consequence at all.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Here's an interesting angle...

From: Yahoo News
Republican Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt on Sunday hinted at retribution for Indigenous Oklahomans should doctors readily perform abortions on tribal lands if Roe v. Wade is overturned. But he was stepping outside the boundaries of state authority, according to Indigenous legal experts.
...
Under a 1953 federal law, there are six states — Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon and Wisconsin — that have jurisdiction over criminal law on reservations. Some other states, including Florida, Idaho, Montana and Washington, later obtained criminal law jurisdiction on reservations, but a 1968 law prevented any more states from doing so without tribal permission.

I wonder how well that would work, if various indigenous set up abortion clinics on their lands to offer services to, well, everyone. (The article does point out that the law is very murky, especially if a non-native doctor was providing services to a non-native patient. I'm sure there would be court challenges a-plenty.)

Well, I guess that is one way for Indians to get back at the white man. Kill them in the womb when nobody else will? Kind of creepy implications to that, tbh.

Also, is abortion law more relaxed or more stringent on reservations than what we see now, generally? Like, what would be their motivation to become a massive abortion hub?

[EaglePuncher]

double post

[EaglePuncher]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Well, I guess that is one way for Indians to get back at the white man. Kill them in the womb when nobody else will? Kind of creepy implications to that, tbh.

Every post is some agressive, baseless, silly stuff about skin color, but calling you a certain word? No no no no, that's where you draw the line.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by EaglePuncher

Every post is some agressive, baseless, silly stuff about skin color, but calling you a certain word? No no no no, that's where you draw the line.

You don't think the idea that if Roe gets overturned, that Indian Reservations might become a massive hub for aborting non-reservation babies, to be at least a little creepy sounding?

I do. I just can't imagine it happening. Then again, I can't imagine Roe being overturned, either.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Warp12

You don't think the idea that if Roe gets overturned, that Indian Reservations might become a massive hub for aborting non-reservation babies, to be at least a little creepy sounding?

I do. I just can't imagine it happening. Then again, I can't imagine Roe being overturned, either.

I think men controlling women's health care decisions is creepy sounding.

I don't have to imagine it happening.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

I think men controlling women's health care decisions is creepy sounding.

Meh. The fetus is half "owned" by the father (or however one would say it), imo. That is creepy sounding, too.

It is all creepy when it comes to abortion.

[EaglePuncher]

Originally Posted by Warp12

You don't think the idea that if Roe gets overturned, that Indian Reservations might become a massive hub for aborting non-reservation babies, to be at least a little creepy sounding?

No, why? Why don't you think about all the illegal immigrant women who will save the white race from dying by aborting their child?

Originally Posted by Warp12

I do. I just can't imagine it happening.

Lean back and watch the show.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Meh. The fetus is half-owned by the father, imo. That is creepy sounding, too.

It is all creepy when it comes to abortion.

Own?

A person?

Edited by xjx388:

<SNIP> Rule 0; Rule 12

[bruto]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I don't agree that it would be an unintended consequence at all.

I don't think they're unintended by the fascists passing the bills, but I think they probably are for the people in general.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Well, I guess that is one way for Indians to get back at the white man. Kill them in the womb when nobody else will? Kind of creepy implications to that, tbh.

Also, is abortion law more relaxed or more stringent on reservations than what we see now, generally? Like, what would be their motivation to become a massive abortion hub?

The idea that you think this is somehow about white people says a lot about your position.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Well, I guess that is one way for Indians to get back at the white man. Kill them in the womb when nobody else will? Kind of creepy implications to that, tbh.

Also, is abortion law more relaxed or more stringent on reservations than what we see now, generally? Like, what would be their motivation to become a massive abortion hub?

As Bob the Coward points out, your assumption that this would be about white people seems a bit odd, as the percentage of abortions to pregnancies is lowest among whites, highest among blacks. Of course because white people's majority is greater than that discrepancy, the majority of abortions might still be among whites, but far from proportional.

I am guessing, "massive abortion hub" might be a little hyperbolic, but I can imagine a couple of motivations. One might be simply a good source of income. To be the sole available provider of anything is likely to be profitable. Another might be to attract more medical personnel and facilities to the reservation and enhance the overall health care there.

[TheGoldcountry]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Meh. The fetus is half "owned" by the father (or however one would say it), imo. That is creepy sounding, too.

It is all creepy when it comes to abortion.

The fetus is part of the woman's body, which no one "owns."

Whatever power parents have over their children after birth, it doesn't include ownership.

The more you write, the more I learn about how you really think. It's not pleasant.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by bruto

I am guessing, "massive abortion hub" might be a little hyperbolic, but I can imagine a couple of motivations. One might be simply a good source of income. To be the sole available provider of anything is likely to be profitable.

That's what we all want to see...a booming cash business on Indian Reservations...from exterminating the unborn. Seems noble enough.

Of course most liberals will blame the Republicans for such a thing. After all, who could blame the Indians for wanting to make a buck?

I guess the moneymaking opportunities are one silver lining to the Roe cloud.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Warp12

That's what we all want to see...a booming cash business on Indian Reservations...from exterminating the unborn. Seems noble enough.

Of course most liberals will blame the Republicans for such a thing. After all, who could blame the Indians for wanting to make a buck?

I guess the moneymaking opportunities are one silver lining to the Roe cloud.

And they'd be right too. The blame for creating a situation goes to those who create it. If a law doesn't work, who else's fault is it? If burning books enriches the printers of new ones, it's not the printers' fault.

We don't even know of course if and how Indian reservations might pick up the abortion slack, and how possible it would be. But one must presume that those who provide abortions believe in the right to do so.

You could substitute "Canadians" for "Indians," and say the same thing. If you ban something and everyone not immediately subject to it picks up the slack to provide it, a redistribution of revenue is inevitable, but the underlying reason is that the argument behind the ban has failed.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I guess the moneymaking opportunities are one silver lining to the Roe cloud.

Yes, Republicans are doing a good job of creating an abortion industry.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Warp12

That's what we all want to see...a booming cash business on Indian Reservations...from exterminating the unborn. Seems noble enough.

Of course most liberals will blame the Republicans for such a thing. After all, who could blame the Indians for wanting to make a buck?

I guess the moneymaking opportunities are one silver lining to the Roe cloud.

Let see..

You could stop abortions by
1: Ensuring there is good, mandatory sexual education in high school (and home school systems) so everyone knows how pregnancies occur and can be managed to only happen when you want to.
2: Ensuring everone form ages 15+ or so has access to free and if wanted anonymously distributed contraceptives to severely limit unwanted pregnancies.
3: Ensuring there is a good welfare system to support those mothers that do get pregnant without their intent so a child does not become a lifetime sentence to poverty for those without a family support system.
4: Ensuring a good nationalised healthcare system so even poor expectant mothers can afford healthcare for themselves and their prospective children.
5: Ensuring there is a good public school system where the money is evenly distributed rather than focused in the rich neighborhoods so prospective new mothers know their child will have a good shot at life regardless of where it is born or who their parent are.

Each of these are policies the Republican party actively opposes. And you yourself have stated to be against option 5 as that might mean the children of illegal immigrants might be educated.

So yes, it IS the Republican party that creates a situation where many prospective mothers see abortion as the only option. Since that won't change, the amount of abortions won't change either. But at least you'll put more people in prison for being desperate or willing to help the desperate.

I find your bleating about the 'killing of poor fetuses' extremely hypocritical given your support for the system that creates the very situation.

[Blank]

Look at the bright side.

With abortions being illegal on the premises that people are obligated to save a life with extreme discomfort and even possible danger to themselves - shouldnt the logical expansion of this make stuff like bone marrow donation (on your own expense) mandatory for ppl? I mean lives that this procedure would save don't even have any "human or not?" ambiquity.

Or am I missing something.. Like lack of internal logic or humanity of these pro-lifers?

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Blank

Look at the bright side.



With abortions being illegal on the premises that people are obligated to save a life with extreme discomfort and even possible danger to themselves - shouldnt the logical expansion of this make stuff like bone marrow donation (on your own expense) mandatory for ppl? I mean lives that this procedure would save don't even have any "human or not?" ambiquity.



Or am I missing something.. Like lack of internal logic or humanity of these pro-lifers?

Yes, you see they believe themselves immune to the concerns of others. But something that might inconvenience them or merely run counter to their preferences is anathema.

It is entirely consistent in that sense.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

Let see..

You could stop abortions by
1: Ensuring there is good, mandatory sexual education in high school (and home school systems) so everyone knows how pregnancies occur and can be managed to only happen when you want to.

Do you happen to have any data on the number of abortions performed every year, on patients who did not understand how they got pregnant?

[gnome]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Do you happen to have any data on the number of abortions performed every year, on patients who did not understand how they got pregnant?

Probably nothing that specific. But there is solid evidence that unwanted pregnancies drop significantly where comprehensive sex education is taught, with associated drop in abortions.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Do you happen to have any data on the number of abortions performed every year, on patients who did not understand how they got pregnant?

Not the numbers, because I do not live in the approaching theocracy called the US.
But if you're interested I suggest you compare abortion rates and teen pregnancies in the Netherlands, with by US standards abortions on demand and horribly socialist healthcare and sex education vs Texas or some other conservative stronghold.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Blank

Look at the bright side.

With abortions being illegal on the premises that people are obligated to save a life with extreme discomfort and even possible danger to themselves - shouldnt the logical expansion of this make stuff like bone marrow donation (on your own expense) mandatory for ppl? I mean lives that this procedure would save don't even have any "human or not?" ambiquity.

Or am I missing something.. Like lack of internal logic or humanity of these pro-lifers?

It's the trolley problem, in part. Lack of action (not donating bone marrow) is seen as more morally acceptable than taking an action (getting an abortion).

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

Let see..

1: Ensuring there is good, mandatory sexual education in high school (and home school systems) so everyone knows how pregnancies occur and can be managed to only happen when you want to.
.....

A certain percentage of pregnancies are the result of sex that did not happen when it was wanted.

[Bob001]

Another doctor weighs in:

Quote:

The dangers that a patient faces, the treatment options we can consider, the risks she may be willing to take—all of these evolve over the nine months of a pregnancy. The only people who understand this better than obstetricians do are our pregnant patients themselves, who count every passing moment in their bodies.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ortion/629921/