Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead

[bsjkki]

Legal elective abortions after 20 weeks is relatively rare worldwide. I have no issues with states deciding this issue. At least then some babies will be protected. My state is now an abortion destination. It does make me want to move. You can kill a viable baby at any time up to ‘crowning.’ I think that is legalized murder.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/09/is-the-united-states-one-of-seven-countries-that-allow-elective-abortions-after-20-weeks-of-pregnancy/

[Durangout]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

How's that?

We’re it not for a conservative state with conservative time limits on abortion, she would have been aborted / murdered and never known life. As well I would have missed out on the single most impactful spiritual experience of my life.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Trying to educate them has worked so well so far.

Can you sue lawmakers personally?  For example, if a state was somehow to make it a requirement that an ectopic pregnancy not be terminated unless reimplanted and a woman died because her doctors refused to actively remove it because they knew implantation is impossible with our technology at this time and instead they waited to act until the tube ruptured, leading to her death…could the main sponsor of the bill making it illegal be personally sued as responsible for this woman’s death?

I’m pretty sure they couldn’t be sue. But I’m not positive. 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’m pretty sure they couldn’t be sue. But I’m not positive. 

Me too. It makes sense to protect so people can vote their conscience without undue pressure. I don’t feel quite so good about it when it seems it is more for protecting personal advancement, power, corruption. If losing an election is the biggest consequence a lawmaker can suffer, why should they put in long hours to get the laws right?  Someone else can take care of the problems. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Calm

[Tacenda]

This law definitely should not be black and white. There are so many variables in play. Here's an article that may soon be out of date. But it's hopeful to me that late stage abortions are rare. I have a problem if a woman gets an abortion at a later stage for reasons that don't include any harm to herself or for personal reasons or money or ? I think they should have the baby and give it up for adoption. But that's easy for me to say. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/

[rodheadlee]

This is not about abortion and Roe versus Wade. This is about breaking non-disclosure agreements and protocol and maybe the law. This is a draft, drafts are made for both sides of the coin and it's discussed until the vote is taken when it's due(that's how it was explained to me).This is about torpedoing the midterm elections, getting the base off the couch and into the polls. This is about taking your mind off of $6 a gallon gasoline, skyrocketing food prices, an empty shelves.

This is about keeping the Republicans from taking the House and the Senate . Most of you are missing the point. 

Yeah I know I'm banned from the thread. Good Bye. 

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by rodheadlee

[mtomm]

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This law definitely should not be black and white. There are so many variables in play. Here's an article that may soon be out of date. But it's hopeful to me that late stage abortions are rare. I have a problem if a woman gets an abortion at a later stage for reasons that don't include any harm to herself or for personal reasons or money or ? I think they should have the baby and give it up for adoption. But that's easy for me to say. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/

Very interesting article. Thanks

[mtomm]

9 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

This is not about abortion and Roe versus Wade. This is about breaking non-disclosure agreements and protocol and maybe the law. This is a draft, drafts are made for both sides of the coin and it's discussed until the vote is taken when it's due(that's how it was explained to me).This is about torpedoing the midterm elections, getting the base off the couch and into the polls. This is about taking your mind off of $6 a gallon gasoline, skyrocketing food prices, an empty shelves.

This is about keeping the Republicans from taking the House and the Senate . Most of you are missing the point. 

Yeah I know I'm banned from the thread. Good Bye. 

 

It would have been released in June or early July. What difference to the mid-terms does 6 weeks make? The base would have been off the couch at the point anyway. 

All the talking heads are scratching their heads about this leak as it doesn't seem to benefit anyone. At least for now the reasoning is not apparent. 

 

[ttribe]

15 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

This is not about abortion and Roe versus Wade. This is about breaking non-disclosure agreements and protocol and maybe the law. This is a draft, drafts are made for both sides of the coin and it's discussed until the vote is taken when it's due(that's how it was explained to me).This is about torpedoing the midterm elections, getting the base off the couch and into the polls. This is about taking your mind off of $6 a gallon gasoline, skyrocketing food prices, an empty shelves.

This is about keeping the Republicans from taking the House and the Senate . Most of you are missing the point. 

Yeah I know I'm banned from the thread. Good Bye. 

 

Banned or not, you are doing an excellent job of parroting right-wing propaganda. 

[sunstoned]

12 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

It's always fascinating to see how incorrect opinions can persevere across decades and generations. 

@sunstoned, SCOTUS isn't ending abortion.  SCOTUS is saying that SCOTUS shouldn't be deciding abortion for the entire country - the people, and their elected state representatives should decide.   It's been the main argument against roe since the beginning.  

"You lose the right to your body's reproductive system because we say so" is a silly notion.  Women get to chose for themselves, what their state's abortion laws should be.  For example: In Mississippi, women (51.5% of the population) cast 55.5% of the votes in Nov'20.  The women in Mississippi will elect who they wanna elect, and if Roe goes away, they'll have the abortion laws they want.  Stop denying them their voice, just because you happen to like Roe.  If Roe ends, you don't get to disenfranchise women any more on this topic.

There has been a concerted effort to suppress voting rights and increased gerrymandering in red states.  So it is not a given that women's vote or voices will be recognized. 

[sunstoned]

11 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

This is a hugely important point, which needs to be widely understood.

Common reasons that women give about their choice to get abortions: 
"It's not the right time to start a family."
"I can't afford to have a baby right now."
"I don't think he's the one" (talking about the father)
"I'd have to [take time off/quit school/alter my social life]"
"I don't want to spend that much for child care."

Again, the majority, the large majority, of reasons, are along these lines.

It doesn't matter the reasons.  It is their bodies and their choice. 

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, Durangout said:

…and just like that, the 2022 midterms are no longer about inflation, Afganistán, supply chain, immigration crisis, Pres/vp incompetence, mandates…. Well, that was easy and cost hardly anything.

That is probably why the draft was leaked.

[teddyaware]

36 minutes ago, mtomm said:

It would have been released in June or early July. What difference to the mid-terms does 6 weeks make? The base would have been off the couch at the point anyway. 

All the talking heads are scratching their heads about this leak as it doesn't seem to benefit anyone. At least for now the reasoning is not apparent. 

 

If some “talking heads’” are saying neither side benefits from the leak, they are either being willfully blind or just lying. It’s a virtual certainty that the leak came from someone on the pro Rowe vs Wade side, an outraged individual who leaked the story in the hope of generating enough political pressure and threats to cause one of more of the justices who were previously in favor of overturning the 1973 ruling to ultimately back down and vote against reversing Rowe vs Wade.

Edited May 4, 2022 by teddyaware

[mtomm]

1 minute ago, teddyaware said:

If some “talking heads’” are saying neither side benefits from the leak, they are either being willfully blind or just lying. It’s a virtual certainty that the leak came from someone on the pro Rowe vs Wade side, an outraged someone who leaked the story in the hope of generating enough political pressure and threats to cause one of more of the justices, who were previously in favor of overturning The 1973 ruling, to ultimately back down and vote against reversing Rowe vs Wade.

I've seen the exact opposite argued by conservatives. That is was leaked to apply pressure to conservative justices to not change their original vote. 

Also, what sort of pressure can be put on a judge who is not elected and has a lifetime appointment? It's not like they will lose their job. 

Who is right? Maybe we will never know. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Does the study offer any solutions to this suffering other than extreme measures of killing human life?  Are we to assume that is the only, or best solution?

Actually I was assuming it implied there were ways to mitigate at least the financial issues, by have better financial support of Mom and kids.

Possibly better access to birth control could help with timing of having children when ready for them.

Edited May 4, 2022 by Calm

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

This is not about abortion and Roe versus Wade. This is about breaking non-disclosure agreements and protocol and maybe the law. This is a draft, drafts are made for both sides of the coin and it's discussed until the vote is taken when it's due(that's how it was explained to me).This is about torpedoing the midterm elections, getting the base off the couch and into the polls. This is about taking your mind off of $6 a gallon gasoline, skyrocketing food prices, an empty shelves.

This is about keeping the Republicans from taking the House and the Senate . Most of you are missing the point. 

Yeah I know I'm banned from the thread. Good Bye. 

 

I am curious how this is supposed to torpedo the mid-terms when the actual opinions will be officially announced even closer to the mid-terms. Surely it would be better to wait for the announcement so it isn’t even older news. If your incentive is the reason it was leaked I would think that the GOP would be the ones who would want to get it pushed through the news cycle early. Did you think this through at all? Or did whoever told you this? After all they have been splashing it all over the media without explaining the glaringly obvious flaw in that reasoning.

I don’t think this release was politically motivated by this specific concern because it makes little sense.

Also are you one of those weirdos who thinks there are levers in the Oval Office and if you push them it makes the gas prices move? The only way to avoid the current increase in fuel and food prices would have been to let Putin get away with the Ukraine genocide. Not just the US. All of the world would have had to be okay with letting it happen. Russia and Ukraine are both breadbasket states. Whining about our grocery bills going up seems petty when mass starvation is looming. Afghanistan, Yemen, and Lebanon are already starting to see mass hunger and starvation. It is going to get worse particularly in Africa and the Middle East that traditionally get food from Russia and Ukraine. Attempts to get more money to get American food overseas soon have died in Congress and the Administration has much more limited funds. India, Argentina, and Canada are being urged diplomatically to donate or at least sell more food but Canada and the US are still a little lower in reserves than usual due to droughts. China reportedly has higher reserves but their help usually comes with strings attached and China may want to keep their stockpile. They are a net importer and it is not clear how much grain they can get from Russia in the next few years. Complaining food prices in the US are up about 10% is first world whining at its worst unless you are living on the edge of your income. Suggesting there is some magical solution that could have avoided it is disturbingly naive.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Legal elective abortions after 20 weeks is relatively rare worldwide. I have no issues with states deciding this issue. At least then some babies will be protected. My state is now an abortion destination. It does make me want to move. You can kill a viable baby at any time up to ‘crowning.’ I think that is legalized murder.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/09/is-the-united-states-one-of-seven-countries-that-allow-elective-abortions-after-20-weeks-of-pregnancy/

This may actually increase the numbers for those seeking late term abortions instead of earlier ones. Beyond the reason of fatal fetal anomalies and life threatening concerns, those most likely to fit the 20-24 week window, often do so usually because of logistical delays such as cost and distance to said services. State by state legislation will lead to more chances for delay in services as women will need to plan to go out of state to receive an abortion. it may hinder some abortions from ever happening but it may also increase rates of later abortions as the ones determined to have one may wait longer to receive one, ironically increasing the type of abortion people generally find the most repugnant. 

(Random side fact, the gestational age for people who have abortions in the first trimester has been getting younger because of medication abortions increasing the ability to receive care more promptly). 

 

With luv,

BD

[Kenngo1969]

"My Body, My Choice" with respect to abortion, but not with respect to COVID-19 vaccination?  In the latter case, it is your body, their choice.  (Double standard, anyone? ...)

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

"My Body, My Choice" with respect to abortion, but not with respect to COVID-19 vaccination?  In the latter case, it is your body, their choice.  (Double standard, anyone? ...)

I'm just so happy that

1. Everyone here agrees, on this LDS site, with the position of the  church on abortion 

 2. But better yet, there is not even the suggestion of politics!

It just speaks to the consistency of the mods, and the faithfulness of the members! 

 

 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It just speaks to the consistency of the mods, and the faithfulness of the members! 

Have you reported?  I haven’t.  If reported, do you know if mods have seen it yet?  If mods aren’t likely aware yet due to lack of report or not being available to check in because of life, it seems ungrateful to me to focus on their alleged lack of consistency of allowing politics (they are very consistent in being inconsistent on checking in, but given they aren’t paid, it is remarkable they haven’t given up on us long ago).

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

If some “talking heads’” are saying neither side benefits from the leak, they are either being willfully blind or just lying. It’s a virtual certainty that the leak came from someone on the pro Rowe vs Wade side, an outraged individual who leaked the story in the hope of generating enough political pressure and threats to cause one of more of the justices who were previously in favor of overturning the 1973 ruling to ultimately back down and vote against reversing Rowe vs Wade.

It is not a certainty.

It is worth noting that this draft first circulated in February. Why wait? The draft is also an incredibly extreme take. Some of the reasoning is extreme and can be used as precedents to undo other decisions. Most likely there would have been jockeying to pull some of that out and tone it down from Roberts and the minority. Roberts would have wanted to soften a lot of it. Possibly Kavanaugh too and might have gotten some concessions on altering the ruling to. With the release this has the likely effect of locking in most of the draft. If it is edited too much after this it potentially damages the court’s standing and “apolitical” nature (lol) because it can and will be argued that the decision was modified due to public pressure. Any Justice who was considering switching sides (doubtful) now has much more incentive not to do so. 

Political pressure to reverse the decision? There isn’t any method unless you think Supreme Court Justices are going to be impeached which is a big nope. None of the Justices have to run for reelection. Do you really think any of the current justices are going to reverse their decision based on the potential of someone physically threatening them? You are being silly.

Who benefits politically from precedents that could be used to tear down additional Supreme Court decisions on things like right to contraception or Gay Marriage? Who can use that power? The majority or the minority? Who benefits from having the opportunity to shift the story to being about the leak instead of the effects of the decision?

I doubt it was any of the justices. It was likely a clerk. You don’t look at potential motive or the actual impact beyond a PR hit for the mid-terms that was going to happen anyways and with more advantageous timing. The talking heads are playing you friend.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I'm just so happy that

1. Everyone here agrees, on this LDS site, with the position of the  church on abortion 

 2. But better yet, there is not even the suggestion of politics!

It just speaks to the consistency of the mods, and the faithfulness of the members! 

 

 

Wait….someone is making my apolitical thread about the Church’s reaction to this news political? What monster did this? I need to challenge them to a duel at once.

[CV75]

On 5/3/2022 at 4:33 AM, The Nehor said:

The draft majority opinion of a ruling overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked. Looks like at least five justices agree with the decision. This is only a draft and Justices can and do shift their opinions before final rulings are made so this is tentative and could change but I doubt it will.

If this ruling is finalized abortion is not protected at the federal level. This means the issue devolves to the states unless or until Congress passes a federal law about abortion (which would probably face another court challenge itself). Some states still have laws on the books making abortion illegal and others have already passed laws heavily restricting abortions to early timeframes. There will probably be additional challenges on bills circulating that make it illegal to go out of state to get an abortion. The abortion bounty law of my own state is an interesting perverted twist on avoiding court scrutiny.

I think back to my political science professor in college who stated that legal scholars generally agreed that the reasoning in Roe v. Wade (7-2 decision) was weak and I agreed after I read it. I was unsurprised to see that in the majority opinion. Some pro-choice legalisms advocated wanting to retry it on better grounds. The ruling takes pains to protect some of the precedents roe relied on as being still valid so looks like interracial marriage rights are safe. Meanwhile the argument about rights created that have no basis in history is a dagger aimed at (among other things) the rulings that ended anti-sodomy laws and protect same sex marriage so those are on shaky ground.

This kind of document leaking pretty much never happens and it is not clear who leaked it. There are valid reasons either side of the debate might want it released early. If they figure out which clerk did it that person’s legal career will suffer a setback. The final ruling is probably about two months out.

I am interested to see if the Church changes the abortion exceptions in reaction to this or adds a proviso about following the law when seeking one or anything of that sort. The rules walked a tightrope between the primary positions and the Brethren have not spoken much on the matter of late.

They are not potentially dead. Roe died in 2017 and Wade in 2001. They are very, very dead.

[Ragerunner]

Several states are passing laws that would prohibit a member of the church their religious freedom rights to follow the council and direction from the church and the Holy Ghost on this issue. I will not support such laws that attack our own personal religious freedoms. I am surprise how mean members on this board are so quick to through away those religious rights/beliefs for politics.

I firmly believe it is inhumane and cruel to force a woman to have a child that was forced upon her by a man or that could kill her. 

“Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.“

[bsjkki]

A badly decided ruling decided decades ago can be overturned. 

The morality of abortion itself is another debate. I choose life. Is it a baby or a clump of cells? Once individuals make that decision, it will be impossible to find common ground on the issue.

Edited May 4, 2022 by bsjkki