SCOTUS - Oral Argument on Abortion Rights Case

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, kimpearson said:

I would like to pose several questions on this topic. 

Does a woman have any rights at all once she is pregnant to determine the course of that pregnancy based on her circumstances, beliefs, mental and physical health or does she just become a vessel for the fetus (I use that term on purpose because there is no clear revelation on when a fetus becomes a baby with a spirit) and the fetus's rights overrule any concern of the mother?

It would depend on the beliefs you already hold. I get why, particularly those who view the fetus as equal to a baby it becomes a balancing act at best. For later abortions, I get squeamish as well and prefer there be some solid health related reasons for such decisions. It's basically measuring a life with a life in this construct. For many one life has more capacity to choose in general and thus have more responsibility to care for others than the (likely) unconscious life growing inside her. 

That said, I think it's been a bit of a cultural problem to give more regard to baby even outside of abortion conversations. Much of the natural birth movement, for example, is a lot about reclaiming female autonomy in birth and pregnancy. In many ways our bodies are treated like vessels and there can be more focus on bringing a healthy baby out of the woman than the cost it may take on the woman herself. I've heard more than one poor medical decision that were at best neglectful care by the doctors and a few times could have been malpractice suits. To be fair, many women often will do the same, choosing their growing child over their own comfort and health at times. But also to be fair, women are often socially taught to be very aware of other people's needs and to lose themselves in the roles they fulfill, especially motherhood. 

 

 

Quote

Secondly how many of you have personally listened to the stories of women who have had abortions?  Not just read one but in person or in a video.  I have and the vast majority struggled mightily with the decision and it always seems to come down to either they weren't mentally ready and feared for their own sanity or the woman was in a terrible living situation that would likely be incredibly destructive to the mom and baby.   I believe there is much we as a society can do to give those with these concerns an alternative to abortion but those options just don't exist for many woman especially the means to carry a healthy pregnancy that ends in a well placed adoption.

I have also heard a smaller number whose stories indicate it was just for convenience which I would never condone.

I don't know someone who went through an abortion (yet), but I've been apart of a couple women's experiences in contemplating abortion. Both I could understand, though 1 was definitely not an empathetic story (woman cheated and husband/wife weren't sure they could handle having a child that wasn't his). The other is the story I mentioned earlier. I've read others from first hand accounts and have tried listening to others but don't like the dramatized versions that I found. For what it's worth, these are the stats on reasons for an abortion I could find: https://www.umassmed.edu/news/news-archives/2019/05/who-are-the-1-in-4-american-women-who-choose-abortion/. I would note that there may be a bit of a filter of stories that lean towards the ones most would socially empathize with when people are open enough to share. So in some ways stats can give a better picture of the overall make up, including people's who's stories we'd have a hard time condoning. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

[Ragerunner]

If we are going to ‘force’ women into this situation, no matter the consequence for them. Then state and federal laws need to treat the man the same way. I am not talking about some child support. He needs to have his life forcibly altered at the same impact level and face long term impacts as well. Things like sterilization or even being prohibited from having sex for a period of time should be put into place. If a male is facing having his reproductive functions impaired he will be much more thoughtful about how and when he uses it.

If we really want to solve the probable of unwanted pregnancies than the other 50% of the equation must truly feel the impacts of their decision making as well. 

Do this and the need for abortion will plunge.

If we don’t do this than we are creating a huge inequality issue in our society and still will not solve the unwanted pregnancy issue.

Edited December 4, 2021 by Ragerunner

[Tacenda]

47 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

If we are going to ‘force’ women into this situation, no matter the consequence for them. Then state and federal laws need to treat the man the same way. I am not talking about some child support. He needs to have his life forcibly altered at the same impact level and face long term impacts as well. Things like sterilization or even being prohibited from having sex for a period of time should be put into place. If a male is facing having his reproductive functions impaired he will be much more thoughtful about how and when he uses it.

If we really want to solve the probable of unwanted pregnancies than the other 50% of the equation must truly feel the impacts of their decision making as well. 

Do this and the need for abortion will plunge.

If we don’t do this than we are creating a huge inequality issue in our society and still will not solve the unwanted pregnancy issue.

So spot on!!

[california boy]

If Row V Wade is modified or overturned by the Supreme Court.  Could Congress pass a law making abortion legal again?  

[BRMC]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

If Row V Wade is modified or overturned by the Supreme Court.  Could Congress pass a law making abortion legal again?  

I don't see why they couldn't.  It would likely be challenged again as a state's rights issue, though.  It would also have a hard time passing.

Edited December 4, 2021 by BRMC

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

If Row V Wade is modified or overturned by the Supreme Court.  Could Congress pass a law making abortion legal again?  

It will be interesting to see how this goes. As far as I can tell abortion rights are overwhelmingly popular with voters. Because of Roe v Wade, certain politicians were able to score a lot of points by being over the top anti-abortion as well as pass very strict abortion laws without any real consequences (anti abortion base was pleased and no real backlash since the laws were always blocked).
 

Now that it seems likely that Roe is going to be overturned I wonder if those positions aren’t forced to be more moderate. 

[webbles]

5 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

If we are going to ‘force’ women into this situation, no matter the consequence for them. Then state and federal laws need to treat the man the same way. I am not talking about some child support. He needs to have his life forcibly altered at the same impact level and face long term impacts as well. Things like sterilization or even being prohibited from having sex for a period of time should be put into place. If a male is facing having his reproductive functions impaired he will be much more thoughtful about how and when he uses it.

If we really want to solve the probable of unwanted pregnancies than the other 50% of the equation must truly feel the impacts of their decision making as well. 

Do this and the need for abortion will plunge.

If we don’t do this than we are creating a huge inequality issue in our society and still will not solve the unwanted pregnancy issue.

This assumes that it is men that want to prevent abortion and that women want abortion.  That's not the case.  There's a lot of women against abortion and a lot of men for abortion.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It will be interesting to see how this goes. As far as I can tell abortion rights are overwhelmingly popular with voters. Because of Roe v Wade, certain politicians were able to score a lot of points by being over the top anti-abortion as well as pass very strict abortion laws without any real consequences (anti abortion base was pleased and no real backlash since the laws were always blocked).
 

Now that it seems likely that Roe is going to be overturned I wonder if those positions aren’t forced to be more moderate. 

I read an article about the contradictions in the polls on abortion: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-americans-really-think-about-abortion/.  Abortion rights isn't actually "overwhelmingly popular".

There's a graph about midway in the article that shows the percentage who want abortion completely illegal, completely legal, and in between.  The completely illegal is about 10-15%.  The completely legal is about 25%.  The rest all want some restrictions on abortion.

There's another graph farther down of 3 pie circles.  It shows 60% of the people are ok with abortion in the first trimester but only 28% of the people are ok with abortion in the second trimester.  But oddly, 69% of the people don't want Roe v Wade overturned which allows abortion through till nearly the end of the second trimester.  So, it is almost like people don't actually understand what Roe v Wade means when they say they don't want it overturned.

I do agree that extremely strict abortion laws (such as no abortion or heartbeat bills) are not popular but the current law is also not popular (when you actually ask the details and not just ask if they like Roe v Wade).  It appears that people want something in between the two.  So overturning Roe v Wade might actually be beneficial to allow the law to match what the citizens want.

[BRMC]

16 minutes ago, webbles said:

This assumes that it is men that want to prevent abortion and that women want abortion.  That's not the case.  There's a lot of women against abortion and a lot of men for abortion.

This is one of the odd narratives run by the pro-abortion folks.   They consistently push the narrative that men are forcing this on women.  I never understood why something so false gained so much traction.

[halconero]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

If Row V Wade is modified or overturned by the Supreme Court.  Could Congress pass a law making abortion legal again?  

It really depends on how they overturn it.* As far as I understand one of RBG’s chief criticisms of R v Wade was it quashed legislative liberalization of abortion of federal levels, implying Congress could safeguard accessibility to a certain extent. If SCOTUS overturns the viability stuff as being outside Wade’s original judicial power, then theoretically Congress could legislate a fetal viability floor or ceiling. But if SCOTUS established fetal personhood then I think it becomes much harder to legislate a liberal abortion law, as taking the life of a person is far more constrained in US law. FWIW, I think the former possibility is more likely than the latter.

*Not a lawyer.

[halconero]

9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It will be interesting to see how this goes. As far as I can tell abortion rights are overwhelmingly popular with voters. Because of Roe v Wade, certain politicians were able to score a lot of points by being over the top anti-abortion as well as pass very strict abortion laws without any real consequences (anti abortion base was pleased and no real backlash since the laws were always blocked).
 

Now that it seems likely that Roe is going to be overturned I wonder if those positions aren’t forced to be more moderate. 

I think this is a distinct possibility. The people who feel strongly about abortion feel really strongly about it. That and guns are some of the major single-issue voting blocs in America, and incentivizes strong stances to a) drive fundraising and b) drive turnout.

Most Americans like some access to abortion. At the same time, most Americans want some limits on abortion, especially late-term abortions. While this differs by party, it is still the consensus view across the aisle. It just isn’t the most widely disseminated stance, and doesn’t drive as much discourse, fundraising, or debate as the all-in or all-out positions ask. I fully suspect that, in the event Roe v. Wade gets overturned, that even the most restrictive states start inserting exceptions thereafter. Put another way, everyone is pro-life until they’re confronted with a situation that, rightly or wrongly, justifies an abortion in their eyes.

Edited December 5, 2021 by halconero

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

Abortion rights isn't actually "overwhelmingly popular".

You are right - I should have been more careful in my language. In my mind I was thinking of the recent Texas law where apparently some doctors are refusing to perform ectopic abortions out of fear of being sued. 

[Ragerunner]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

This assumes that it is men that want to prevent abortion and that women want abortion.  That's not the case.  There's a lot of women against abortion and a lot of men for abortion.

No, my comment was that we need to ensure equal accountability and responsibility from both parties involved. I am sure there are people of both sexes that support abortions or are against abortions. 
 

Right now most abortion laws focus on the female with little focus on the male involved. That needs to change if we really want to change the amount of unwanted pregnancies.
 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Ragerunner

[provoman]

edited

Edited December 5, 2021 by provoman

[california boy]

Thanks to all of you who responded to my post. I appreciate your thoughts. It will be interesting to see how this all works out.

Edited December 5, 2021 by california boy

[webbles]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

I it is within Congress powers to so. For example, religious freedom “test” as outlined by SCOTUS (the Oregon employees who used “drugs” for religious purposes). IIRC Congress created the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to “overturn” SCOTUS in the Oregon case.

It would depend on how the SCOTUS rules.  For example, right now it is impossible for congress to ban abortion because SCOTUS has ruled it is a right protected by the constitution.  The only way to change that is to amend the constitution or have SCOTUS overturn their decision.  So if SCOTUS, for example, rules that fetal personhood is a right protected by the constitution, then congress would generally not be able to pass a law to allow abortion.

The cause for Religious Freedom Restoration Act was the Smith and Lyng cases where SCOTUS ruled that the constitution didn't protect them.  Because of that, congress could pass a law since it was in their realm and not controlled by the constitution.

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, webbles said:

There's another graph farther down of 3 pie circles.  It shows 60% of the people are ok with abortion in the first trimester but only 28% of the people are ok with abortion in the second trimester.  But oddly, 69% of the people don't want Roe v Wade overturned which allows abortion through till nearly the end of the second trimester.  So, it is almost like people don't actually understand what Roe v Wade means when they say they don't want it overturned.

I'd add, that it could also mean that they don't think it's a solid idea to] overturn roe v wade because they don't see a solid alternative. I'd fit into these three demos: okay with 1st, less okay or uncertain about 2nd (depending on when), don't want Roe v Wade overturned..especially right now. I don't have a ton of faith that congress could legislate this well considering how hard it is to get things passed that most people in the US do want. There's bigger problems I'd rather see national energy go into than this which if it wasn't so freaking polarized wouldn't be really that big of an interest for me. And I definitely don't like the idea of it being a state by state decision as to what can be allowed abortion wise. Basically the other options just don't sound great even if the status quo is not exactly what I'd want either. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited December 5, 2021 by BlueDreams

[The Nehor]

A federal law legalizing abortion would be legally dubious and easy to challenge. The problem you face is how do you mandate that the states allow abortion? It is easier to federally decriminalize something (think marijuana) and give the power to decide back to the individual states to decide. Mandating means lots of legislative fights between states and the federal government as to what exactly MUST be provided.

Throwing it back to the states basically ensures abortions will be available to anyone with the wealth and resources needed to get them by going to another state. Generally a kind of economic discrimination.

[The Nehor]

On 12/3/2021 at 4:12 PM, BlueDreams said:

On religion. There is definitely a large overlap between more religious people and desired abortion laws. But there are people who aren't religious who still want more restrictive abortions laws. https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/

Adoption is a complicated option and I think gets over simplified as an alternative to abortion. There are usually over 100K children waiting to be adopted, but most of these are older children/non-infants...these children are not all ultimately adopted, some age out, some return home, and some are also placed with non-parent relatives. The demand though for infants is high. But demand wouldn't necessarily be met by nixing abortion for several factors. For one, most women with unexpected pregnancies do not initially give their children up for adoption. At the peak when social pressures were super high and veering on coercive to get women to adopt out, only 9% of women did. Nowadays it's around 1%. Estimates put people waiting or wanting to adopt somewhere between 1-2 mill. The number of abortions happening yearly is around 620-630K depending the year in the US. So let's assume that more restrictive laws laws are implemented that still allow for health and rape oriented exception. And the miraculously lowered abortion numbers a ton (let's say half) and that adoption rates bumped up a little to say 3%. You'd have maybe 9-12k more babies up for adoption each year. Which sounds great, except those babies would not have equal chances of being adopted based on both race, the health circumstances of the mother (ex. drug use), and the health of the baby. AND this would also mean you'd have 300K new babies who are with mothers who likely would have aborted them and are likely in economically or socially compromising positions. The next rate to go up would be that number of 122K with children having stints in fostering..  Children raised in poverty would also raise. Obviously, not all, but there would still likely be significant bumps. That is more realistically what would happen (along with pro-life oriented groups cherry picking info on increased adoption rates as a sign of a win for getting rid of abortion laws).

It should also be pointed out that adoption is often still traumatic even when the desired result is met. Far more so than abortion....particularly early ones.

The racial disparity in adoptions rates is huge.

The best way to make abortion seem like a less attractive option would be to assist the parent or parents so that it is less likely keeping the child will impoverish them or keep them in poverty. Sadly the people who claim to care deeply about the health of the fetus often seem to care far less for the child once they are born.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The racial disparity in adoptions rates is huge.

The best way to make abortion seem like a less attractive option would be to assist the parent or parents so that it is less likely keeping the child will impoverish them or keep them in poverty. Sadly the people who claim to care deeply about the health of the fetus often seem to care far less for the child once they are born.

Very true!

[Rain]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The racial disparity in adoptions rates is huge.

The best way to make abortion seem like a less attractive option would be to assist the parent or parents so that it is less likely keeping the child will impoverish them or keep them in poverty. Sadly the people who claim to care deeply about the health of the fetus often seem to care far less for the child once they are born.

That "seem" is important because for most people that isn't true.  They just don't believe the government should provide the support. Many of them also start charitable causes that will help them.  

It isn't enough help or we would see fewer problems, but I think it is important that we stop accusing the other side (both sides) of not caring.  

Edited December 5, 2021 by Rain

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, Rain said:

That seem is important because for most people that isn't true.  They just don't believe the government should provide the support. Many of them also start charitable causes that will help them.  

It isn't enough help or we would see fewer problems, but I think it is important that we stop accusing the other side (both sides) of not caring.  

I am accusing all sides of not caring.

I have volunteered as a casa worker with CPS and you would think funding care for abused kids would be a slam dunk obvious move that would not be in any way controversial. Well, it is definitely not controversial since everyone seems united in apathy.

Turns out not so much. Some individuals and groups care but there is no real critical mass advocating for kids on any side of the political aisle. You end up with workers routinely trying to support five to ten times the recommended number of children they can safely oversee.

[BRMC]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am accusing all sides of not caring.

I have volunteered as a casa worker with CPS and you would think funding care for abused kids would be a slam dunk obvious move that would not be in any way controversial. Well, it is definitely not controversial since everyone seems united in apathy.

Turns out not so much. Some individuals and groups care but there is no real critical mass advocating for kids on any side of the political aisle. You end up with workers routinely trying to support five to ten times the recommended number of children they can safely oversee.

Not supporting the forcible taking of funds from one person and giving it to another doesn't always mean people don't care.  Sometimes it just means people don't support redistributing funds by force for everything.

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Not supporting the forcible taking of funds from one person and giving it to another doesn't always mean people don't care.  Sometimes it just means people don't support redistributing funds by force for everything.

And what is your explanation then for the lack of fundraising and volunteer contributions to cover the gap in government funding in this consistently underfunded area as it is fairly well known it is an overburdened system?

Edited December 5, 2021 by Calm

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Not supporting the forcible taking of funds from one person and giving it to another doesn't always mean people don't care.  Sometimes it just means people don't support redistributing funds by force for everything.

I think it more often means they have very bad priorities.