bsjkki Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 1 hour ago, ttribe said: This just happened. https://www.azfamily.com/2022/06/29/arizona-attorney-general-says-territorial-area-law-banning-abortion-is-effect/ And it still has the life of the mother exceptions. I don’t see why women have to cross state lines in secret. Could someone point to solid evidence this would ever be enforceable or is the law in any state?
The Nehor Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 3 hours ago, Danzo said: If Stan the Jerk wants to make life miserable for someone, he already has plenty of tools. Minorities have been having the cops called on them for a long time, before Roe v Wade, during Roe v Wade, and I am sure after Dodds. This isn't going to make it different. The problem has more to do with Stan being a jerk. I feel genuine pity for the fool who dares going around trying to call woman pregnant. It's never safe to assume a woman is pregnant unless they are in labor in front of you (even then, I would ask first). I don’t agree that anything that happens with these new laws would have happened anyways. When Jim Crow laws popped up the white supremacists certainly thought more laws made things more repressive. If abortion is criminal I pity the woman who might be arrested and interrogated to find out if she had an abortion.
webbles Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: If abortion is criminal I pity the woman who might be arrested and interrogated to find out if she had an abortion. Is this a thing? The only places where I see this talked about is pro-choice sites and it feels a little like "fear-mongering". I don't see any laws nor do I see any pro-life groups advocating things like this. They are generally advocating that the woman is not to be punished for an abortion (whether legal or illegal). 4
webbles Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 4 hours ago, ttribe said: This just happened. https://www.azfamily.com/2022/06/29/arizona-attorney-general-says-territorial-area-law-banning-abortion-is-effect/ Here's the actual law - https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03603.htm Quote A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years. The new law can be found at https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/sb1164p.pdf. It is a bit longer so I can't just paste it here. Oddly, it has the following section: Quote Sec. 2. Construction This act does not: 1. Create or recognize a right to abortion or alter generally accepted medical standards. The Legislature does not intend this act to make lawful an abortion that is currently unlawful. 2. Repeal, by implication or otherwise, section 13-3603, Arizona Revised Statutes, or any other applicable state law regulating or restricting abortion. So, the new law doesn't repeal the old law. Does that mean that even when the new law takes affect, the old law would still be in force? If so, it makes the new law pointless since everything in it appears to be superseded by the old law. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 10 hours ago, bsjkki said: I have presented you facts. So, while people may distrust, (based on a lot of fear mongering articles and posts) I do think when presented with the facts people should adjust their fears armed with the accurate information. Outsider’s view: I can see no fundamental difference between pro-choice misinformation and anti-vaccine misinformation. They both seem driven by emotions (including fear) over facts. 2
webbles Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 5 hours ago, ttribe said: This just happened. https://www.azfamily.com/2022/06/29/arizona-attorney-general-says-territorial-area-law-banning-abortion-is-effect/ Utah had something similar, though it wasn't a pre-Roe law. Utah has two abortion laws: HB 136 (passed in 2019) and SB 174 (passed in 2020). HB 136 made abortion illegal after 18 weeks (with exceptions) and it was quickly put on hold by a lawsuit from Planned Parenthood. SB 174 makes abortion illegal at any time (with exceptions) and it was a trigger bill. Once Dobbs was decided, SB 174 became the law on Friday June 24. Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit and it got put on hold on Monday June 26. But the case for HB 136 was ended by all parties on Monday and it is now the law. I think multiple states might have things like this. Multiple laws are in place and some take precedence over others. Some of these laws could date before Roe as they were never removed. 1
The Nehor Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 1 hour ago, webbles said: Is this a thing? The only places where I see this talked about is pro-choice sites and it feels a little like "fear-mongering". I don't see any laws nor do I see any pro-life groups advocating things like this. They are generally advocating that the woman is not to be punished for an abortion (whether legal or illegal). It is not a thing yet. It has the potential to be a thing the way things are going. The people telling women to shut down and delete the data from any app you use to track your period aren’t suggesting it to mess with people. The LGBT community is also bracing itself a little to potentially go low-key. Married couples are getting in touch with lawyers to secure agreements that would survive marriages going invalid. Very early discussions about “bug out” bags and potential refugee accepting nations. 1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Outsider’s view: I can see no fundamental difference between pro-choice misinformation and anti-vaccine misinformation. They both seem driven by emotions (including fear) over facts. They are afraid due to the facts. No one seriously believed the current GOP wants to turn the matter over to the states and call it done. They are already agitating and drumming up support to end abortion nationwide. They will get louder. In Orange County Florida the teachers are already being pressured to not have a picture of their same-gender partner on their desk. They were told to take down the rainbow decorations they were given in previous years. Books are being examined so offending content (the mention of the undesirables) can be removed. Teachers are resigning. They have faced blowback so are softening their stance but this is a PR thing. It is unlikely to stop there. This is 1930s Germany stuff. It will be clean and civilized and explained as necessary to protect children and others. It will spread into more areas of life. It can happen here. There is nothing special about the United States that makes it immune to things like this. It might not. We are still in the early days but I am less worried about “fear-mongering” than I am about “fear-silencing” where no one is allowed to recognize what is going on. There is time to turn this around. I really really really hope I am just being way too alarmist and the decency of people will shut these movements off before it gets bad. I have seen too many things happen in the last few years that I confidently believed could never happen. 4
Hamba Tuhan Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, The Nehor said: This is 1930s Germany stuff. Thank you for confirming my original observation! This is precisely the kind of thing the opposite 'team' were saying about your support for Covid-related public health measures one year ago. You're the mirror image of each other, and neither side can see it. Edited June 30, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan 4
smac97 Posted June 30, 2022 Author Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) Jana Riess: Quote Mormons now look liberal on abortion — by not changing The GOP has swung so far to the right that Mormons’ nuanced abortion stance, once commonly accepted by fellow conservatives, now looks liberal by comparison. We all have our blindspots, I suppose. I think it could just as easily be said (and perhaps more accurately) that the Left has "swung so far" to its extreme that, as Mercedes Schlapp puts it: Quote There was a time when Democrats viewed abortion as something that should be safe, legal, and rare. Today, they view it as a moral good that should have no restrictions, be funded by taxpayers, and celebrated as righteous. Abortion has become a sacrament to the left. And this (from Ben Shapiro in 2018) : Quote This week, amid widespread Democratic tumult regarding the selection of a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, alleged comedian Michelle Wolf paid tribute to the most important facet of American life: abortion. On her Netflix show on Sunday, Wolf dressed up in red, white and blue, and shrieked into the camera, “God bless abortions, and God bless America!” She explained: “Women, if you need an abortion, get one! If you want an abortion, get one! … And women, don’t forget: You have the power to give life and men will try to control that. Don’t let them!” ... Back in 2005, I wrote that the Democratic “safe, legal and rare” formulation regarding abortion was logically and morally untenable: If Democrats wanted abortion to be rare thanks to its inherent immorality, there was no reason for it to be legal. Democrats have finally come around: They’re now “shouting” their abortions, proclaiming them from the rooftops, suggesting that there is a moral good achieved by abortion. Thus, Lena Dunham said just two years ago, “I still haven’t had an abortion, but I wish I had.” Thus, Chelsea Handler, who has had two abortions, explained in the pages of Playboy, “I don’t ever look back and think, ‘God, I wish I’d had that baby.'” Her article was accompanied by a picture of a woman’s hand with a raised middle finger with a pink bow around it; attached to the bow is a small card that reads, “It’s an abortion!” Of note, Shapiro's reference to "abortion" here is somewhat shorthand, as he has elsewhere acknowledged the justifications for limited exceptions. This article (from 2019) does a very good job of tracing the diminution of the "safe, legal, and rare" concept, with the Left having abandoned it because the reference to "rare" in it "stigmatizes" abortion, and with the Right contributing to its demise by passing statel-level laws restricting abortion, and by Pres. Trump's SCOTUS appointments (which, apparently, forced the Left into its further extreme position) : Quote How the abortion debate moved away from “safe, legal, and rare” Democratic politicians used to say abortions should be rare. Here’s how that changed. “I agree with Hillary Clinton on one thing,” Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said at the Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday night. “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.” Clinton used this language in her 2008 presidential campaign; Bill Clinton, meanwhile, had introduced it into Democratic politics back in 1992. The language was likely meant to appeal to people who supported the right to an abortion in principle but still felt morally conflicted about the procedure — a large group, according to some polling. But many abortion rights advocates argued that calling for the procedure to be “rare” placed stigma on people who seek it. “There’s a fundamental notion of bodily autonomy that we’ve been fighting for as advocates and activists on this issue for years,” Destiny Lopez, co-director of the All* Above All Action Fund, a nonprofit that works to expand abortion access, told Vox. Saying abortion should be rare “completely negates all the work that we’ve done to really make this about the ability to decide what’s best for your body, for your family, for your community,” she said. Over the years, Democrats have become more sympathetic to this view. By 2016, Hillary Clinton had changed her message, saying only that abortion should be “safe and legal.” It was part of a broader shift in the party toward more full-throated support of abortion rights. During the 2016 primaries, both Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders called for a repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for most abortions. Today, all the Democratic presidential candidates, including Gabbard, support allowing federal funding for the procedure — along with a slate of other reforms aimed at increasing access. But as Gabbard showed, the framing of “safe, legal, and rare” isn’t gone. Her comment, and the conversation surrounding it, were a reminder not just of how much the Democratic Party has changed in recent years on abortion rights, but of the divisions that still remain. Democratic politicians have been moving away from “safe, legal, and rare” since 2012 The phrase “safe, legal, and rare” entered common usage during the 1992 campaign, when Bill Clinton frequently used it, according to the New York Times. “We have to remind the American people once again that being pro-choice is very different from being pro-abortion,” he told the Congressional Women’s Caucus that year. During her 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton echoed her husband’s message, emphasizing that “by rare, I mean rare.” But over the years, abortion rights advocates have pushed back against the phrase. “Safe, legal, and rare” implies that getting an abortion is something that “you should be apologetic for,” reproductive justice activist Renee Bracey Sherman told Vox. “It places the blame on the person who’s had an abortion, as if they just did something wrong to need one, rather than addressing the systemic issue as to why someone might not be able to have access to consistent health care or contraception.” The push to destigmatize abortion has been part of a larger rise in people who have had abortions being open about their experiences. Those realities have changed a lot since 1992. Opponents of abortion have long sought to restrict the procedure, but after 2010, when Republicans took over many state legislatures, they successfully passed a slate of restrictions on abortion clinics that caused many facilities in the South and Midwest to close. Between 2011 and 2017, half of the clinics in Arizona, Kentucky, Ohio, and Texas shut their doors. In 2017, 89 percent of counties had no abortion clinic, and six states had just one. That made it much harder for many Americans to get an abortion, especially if they couldn’t afford to travel to a far-away clinic. Meanwhile, Trump’s election in 2016 was soon followed by the appointment of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Many advocates on both sides of the issue believe that conservatives on the Court now have enough votes, if not to overturn the landmark abortion decision Roe v. Wade, then at least to significantly weaken it. Earlier this month, the Court announced it would take a case that could give states the green light to pass even more clinic restrictions, possibly legislating clinics out of existence. In a time when access is dwindling and Roe is at risk, advocates have argued that calling for abortion to be “rare” just makes it even harder for people who already struggle to get the procedure — who are disproportionately likely to be poor, people of color, LGBTQ, immigrants, or belong to more than one of these groups — to push for their right to get it. “If there are barriers put in front of a person,” the “safe, legal, and rare” framing implies “that it does not matter because that procedure should be rare,” Lopez said. “So it essentially is denying these folks the ability to really access the care that they deserve.” For that reason, the All* Above All Action Fund says that abortion should be “safe, legal, accessible, and affordable,” not rare, Lopez said. Democratic candidates have been listening to concerns like these, and in recent years, they’ve moved away from “safe, legal, and rare.” The word “rare” was removed from the Democratic party platform in 2012, Bracey Sherman said, and in 2016, Clinton no longer used it on the campaign trail. A discussion of abortion in her 2017 book What Happened showed how much the former candidate’s language had changed on the issue. “We can debate the morality of abortion forever,” Clinton wrote, “but at the end of the day, who decides whether a woman gets or stays pregnant?” Her answer: “I say let women decide.” Clinton’s shift was part of a bigger move in the Democratic Party toward more outspoken and less equivocal support of abortion rights. In particular, advocates had been calling for a repeal of Hyde for years because the amendment, first passed in 1976, blocks Medicaid coverage for almost all abortions. As a result, many low-income Americans are blocked from getting the procedure or forced to go into debt or forego necessities to pay for it. ... The move to repeal Hyde and the move away from “safe, legal, and rare” are linked, Bracey Sherman said. “This is just a general shift in moving away from stigmatizing people who need and have abortions.” Despite the shift, divisions on abortion remain among Democrats But “safe, legal, and rare” isn’t completely gone. Gabbard — who once identified as pro-life but now says she supports abortion rights — used the phrase at the fourth presidential debate on Tuesday night, when she was asked how she would stop states from restricting abortion access. “We see how the consequences of laws that you’re referring to can often lead to a dangerous place,” Gabbard went on. “I do, however, think that there should be some restrictions in place. I support codifying Roe v. Wade while making sure that during the third trimester, abortion is not an option unless the life or severe health consequences of a woman are at risk.” Many abortion rights advocates criticized her response, but one — former Planned Parenthood president Dr. Leana Wen — praised her, arguing that “we should reduce the need for abortions by investing in prevention.” Wen broke with other abortion rights advocates some time ago. When she was removed as Planned Parenthood’s president in July, she said in a statement that, “I believe that the best way to protect abortion care is to be clear that it is not a political issue but a health care one.” Some said the group ousted her because it was looking for “a more aggressive political leader” on abortion rights, while others said she had management issues. Since she left Planned Parenthood, Wen has argued that the best way to build public support for abortion rights is to seek common ground with people who may be uncomfortable with the procedure, but want it to remain legal. She wrote in a New York Times op-ed shortly after her departure that while leading the group, “I reached out to people who wrestle with abortion’s moral complexities, but who will speak out against government interference in personal medical decisions.” “We need to stop treating those whose views differ from our own with scorn and suspicion, and instead work together to safeguard our health, our rights and our future,” she concluded. And after Tuesday’s debate, Wen made clear that she saw the “safe, legal, and rare” framing as a way to reach out to people with different views on the issue. “Pro-choice & progressive movements will lose unless we allow more people to join who do not agree 100% with the most extreme ideology,” she tweeted. (Wen declined, through a representative, to be interviewed for this story.) She isn’t the only abortion-rights supporter to use “safe, legal, and rare” in recent months. In an interview with NPR’s Sarah McCammon earlier this year, Pamela Maraldo, a former president of Planned Parenthood who resigned in 1995 under circumstances similar to Wen’s, said that she wanted Planned Parenthood to return to that framing. “I think that people that are pro-choice are afraid of stigmatizing abortion when they say it should be rare,” she said. But “that’s not where I’m coming from. I’m coming from a place that too many trips to the doctor’s, medical procedures, surgical procedures, could be and should be prevented.” In general, those who argue on behalf of prevention say that better access to contraception would naturally lead to abortion becoming rarer. Indeed, the abortion rate has hit an all-time low in recent years, and experts say better access to long-acting reversible contraceptives like IUDs is likely the reason why. This is a very good article, as it lays out evidence and history on this issue. It illustrates the interplay between how each side's shift has pushed the other toward a more extreme position. However, I also think the Left's abandonment of "rare," and the attendant celebratory/bragging/defiant stance, has resulted in the Left materially pushing itself into a more extreme position. Back to Riess: Quote Friday’s Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has put U.S. members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in an unusual position. Long known for its political conservatism, the church now appears moderate on abortion, despite the fact that it hasn’t changed its official position in years. Which kinda goes to show how inaccurate and unfair people can be when they let their blinkered, led-around-by-the-nose-by-pop-culture, based-on-the-attention-span-of-a-gnat perspective run the show. In reality, the Church's stance indeed "hasn't changed ... in years," and remains very opposed to abortion, allowing for some very few exceptions in some very rare circumstances. As a practical matter, I think there was always plenty of daylight between the Church's position and the "safe, legal, and rare" formulation. Quote That’s because the Republican Party has grown more reactionary over time, and with it a Supreme Court that has tilted significantly to the right with the three justices appointed by former President Donald Trump. To understand this, let’s take a quick look at how abortion policy has developed over time in both the LDS church and the GOP. She goes on to trace the Church's stance back to 1976, when "abortion" was added, for the first time, to the Handbook. Quote The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not come by its exceptions for rape, incest and medical endangerment by accident. Those have been long-standing exceptions approved by previous generations of Americans, including Republicans. In 1967, as governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed a bill that made abortion legal in those three instances in that state even when abortion in general was still illegal in much of the country. He wasn’t alone among political conservatives who realized that an entirely draconian anti-abortion policy was neither humane nor practical. In their 1976 party platform, Republicans were still recognizing multiple sides to the issue of abortion, calling the question “one of the most difficult and controversial of our time,” involving “complex questions relating to medical science and criminal justice.” Members of the party could be found on both sides, it said, though it urged “a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children.” That language was a signal of what political scientist Andrew Lewis has called “The Rights Turn,” emphasizing that the fetus had “a right to life.” Taking a cue from the left’s successful advocacy of individual rights in the civil rights movement, pundits on the right began speaking in the language of individual rights rather than social morality per se, which had been their tactic until that point. Huh. I didn't realize that the "Right to Life" concept was influenced by the Civil RIghts Movement. Though opposition to abortion is, I think, fundamentally based on deeply-rooted notions of "morality," the "civil rights" aspect helps contextualize the concept in a legal framework. Moreover, the commonality between opposition to abortion and the support of Civil Rights also harkens to the commonality between the justifications used for unfettered abortion ("my body, my choice," "it's not a person, it's just a clump of cells") and those used for slavery ("state's rights," "don't tell me what to do with my property," "it's not a person, it's my chattel"). The justifications for the former gloss over, and/or reject, the humanity, the personhood, of the child, and the justifications for the latter glossed over and/or rejected the humanity and personhood of the slaves. Quote Nationally, the idea of exceptions for rape, incest or danger to the mother were spelled out in the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which stipulated that federal funds, including Medicaid, could not be used to pay for abortions — except in those circumstances. Congress was debating this amendment in the summer of 1976, exactly when the LDS church first issued its handbook supplement detailing exceptions for rape and medical emergencies. But that was then, and Republicans have changed dramatically over the years and especially over the last decade. The exceptions for rape, incest and medical endangerment have largely dropped out of the conversation among Republicans. According to The New York Times, new state laws that forbid abortions offer “no allowances for victims of rape or incest in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee or Texas.” The 2016 Republican Platform does not specifically identify any particular exceptions in an abortion context, but does note that "{t}he Democratic Party is extreme on abortion," that their "almost limitless support for abortion, and their strident opposition to even the most basic restrictions on abortion, put them dramatically out of step with the American people." (Emphasis added.) This 2016 article notes that then-candidate Donald Trump said that "he would change the Republican Party platform’s position on abortion to include exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother," and also that "{w}hile the official party platform doesn’t explicitly outline or endorse any abortion exceptions, GOP presidential candidates in the past have supported them, including Mitt Romney, John McCain and both Bush presidents." This is, I think, a nuanced and principled approach to the abortion issue. And while it is not specifically laid out in the Republican Platform, it appears to be the approach advocated by most of the GOP presidential candidates for the last many decades (comprising, it seems, the entirety of the Roe era). Riess does not address this. Back to Riess: Quote Essentially, the Republican Party has swung considerably to the right on the issue of abortion, even as the majority of Americans’ views have stayed largely the same since the 1970s. Most Americans, when surveyed, have nuanced views on abortion and are somewhere in the middle — few want abortion on demand with no restrictions whatsoever, and few want abortion to be entirely illegal with no exceptions. Yet it is the extreme right that appears to be winning the day, despite being a small minority of the population. This makes for a curious situation in which The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, long considered far more conservative politically than the mainstream of America, is on this issue less conservative than the ruling establishment. I often chuckle when I read people like Jana Riess who are caught unawares due to their presuppositions about the Church and people generally. People like Jana, who pay a lot of attention to politics, think the tail wags the dog. That is, that John and Jane Public take or base most or all of their cues on ethical/moral matters from the the platform/edicts of this or that politician or political party. I don't think that's the case. I think most people develop a personal moral code on their own, which eventually comes into contact with political parties/platforms. By that point, however, the individual's moral code is mostly in place, such that A) the individual will gravitate toward a political party/platform/candidate that reflects his viewpoint, and/or B) the individual's viewpoint may be influenced a bit, but not based on, a political party/platform/candidate. In other words, for most people - and I suspect this does not include Jana Riess - the dog (the individual's pre-existing moral code) wags the tail (the individual's political outlook). Quote That may shed light on why the church has added a new twist to its stance on abortion. Within hours of the June 24 Supreme Court decision, it updated its abortion policy with a new final paragraph: “The Church’s position on this matter remains unchanged. As states work to enact laws related to abortion, Church members may appropriately choose to participate in efforts to protect life and to preserve religious liberty.” To preserve religious liberty. The church here connected its long-standing position on abortion with the concept of religious freedom — exactly when the Supreme Court decision undermined LDS members’ right to follow their own handbook instructions on this issue. Though the church has always opposed abortion in the abstract and regarded it as a sin, it has also, for example, consistently sided with protecting maternal health if a mother’s life was endangered by pregnancy. Now that Roe is no more and individual states are free to enact laws without those three provisions, it’s not inconceivable that LDS women in those states who experience medical emergencies related to pregnancy may die. Two of my own friends who are LDS mothers experienced complications with their pregnancies, and one might have died without a medically induced abortion. This is no longer an abstract or theoretical possibility. It's as if the Church moves when it should move (disavowing past racist sentiments and building bridges, elevating compassion and understanding for LGBTQ over condemnation, etc.) and stands firm when should stand firm (a moral yet nuanced stance on abortion, compassion for refugees, opposing same-sex marriage, etc.). It's as if the Brethren are genuinely and sincerely trying to do what they believe and understand to be right, rather than what is merely politically popular/trendy in the moment. Who could have seen that coming? Quote Given that, it’s not entirely clear that the new codicil about church members being encouraged to protect life and preserve religious liberty is actually instructing them to oppose all abortions. The vague wording leaves room for activism on the other side. For example, church members who are interested in protecting religious freedom for all may wish to side with Jews who want to abide by Jewish law — law that not only permits but requires abortion in certain circumstances. Mormons who stand for religious freedom will want Jews to be able to live their religion. Yep. But I think the Brethren will want the Latter-day Saints to live theirs as well. The Church's teaching on abortion is good. It is clear. It accounts for those (statistically very rare) instances in which abortions may be justified, but otherwise is expressly clear on the immorality of elective abortions. I hope the Latter-day Saints follow this counsel. Thanks, -Smac Edited June 30, 2022 by smac97 1
Tacenda Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) 9 hours ago, webbles said: Is this a thing? The only places where I see this talked about is pro-choice sites and it feels a little like "fear-mongering". I don't see any laws nor do I see any pro-life groups advocating things like this. They are generally advocating that the woman is not to be punished for an abortion (whether legal or illegal). But what of the doctors or anyone helping the women needing one? If they are afraid then the woman will suffer something even scarier, possibly their lives, because of their refusal to help for fear they will be punished. Edited June 30, 2022 by Tacenda
pogi Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 Contraceptive sells have increased through the roof. Hording is probably on the rise and accounts for a lot of it, but hopefully this change in law is going to have the positive effect of causing people to take prevention more seriously when abortion is no longer a viable option. We certainly need to do more to make it easily accessible and affordable/free to high risk populations. Preventing unwanted pregnancies is a realistic goal (as long as Justice Thomas doesn't get his way with his disgusting ideas on contraception) and this change in law will only improve chances of success where convenience abortions are restricted. It would be hard to get students to prepare for a test if they know that when they fail, they still get a pass. Take away the easy pass and students will take more accountability/responsibility and prepare in the first place. https://www.ksl.com/article/50432024/amazon-rite-aid-cap-purchase-of-emergency-contraceptives 1
JAHS Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 Not sure how accurate or bias this is but it gives an idea of what each state might do
Ipod Touch Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) I am incredibly sad to see the aggressive actions some state legislatures and leaders are taking. Criminalizing interstate travel? Being "open" to criminalizing homosexual sex and banning birth control? What the h*ll is going on? And I say all of this as a political conservative. Some extremist Republicans are confirming the worst fears of moderates and those on the left. They are confirming that Republicans really are theocrats. This leaves me in no-man's land politically. I can't align with the extremists on the right. But I also can't get on board for anyone who "celebrates" abortion. Clowns to the left and right ... My very lefty spouse has become so disgusted with "shout your abortion" crowds, her feelings are similar to mine. We live in a very blue state where abortion is legal. We have reached out to a local religious organization to offer a room in our home for women who may need to travel here. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, I think we all can agree that if an abortion is going to happen, it should be safe. Same reason it is good public health policy to provide clean needles. I don't think shooting up is a good idea, but if you are going to do it, at least do it safely. Anyway, I don't know who I'll support in November, not to mention 2024. As it stands, I don't think I can support any politican at this point. Edited June 30, 2022 by Ipod Touch 3
bluebell Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 Just now, Ipod Touch said: I am incredibly sad to see the aggressive actions some state legislatures and leaders are taking. Criminalizing interstate travel? Being "open" to criminalizing homosexual sex and banning birth control? What the h*ll is going on? And I say all of this as a political conservative. Some extremist Republicans are confirming the worst fears of moderates and those on the left. They are confirming that Republicans really are theocrats. This leaves me in no-man's land politically. I can't align with the extremists on the right. But I also can't get on board for anyone who "celebrates" abortion. Clowns to the left and right ... It appears that we are very similar politically and I agree with you. Many republicans are just being embarrassing right now. The extreme democrats will counter with their own idiocy, and we'll just keep digging ourselves in deeper and deeper until the government is barely functioning. 3
Popular Post teddyaware Posted June 30, 2022 Popular Post Posted June 30, 2022 A bit of sorely needed clarification on the subject from Russell M Nelson: “Another contention raised is that a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body. To a certain extent this is true for all of us. We are free to think. We are free to plan. And then we are free to do. But once an action has been taken, we are never free from its consequences. Those considering abortion have already exercised certain choices. To clarify this concept, we can learn from the astronaut. Any time during the selection process, planning, and preparation, he is free to withdraw. But once the powerful rocket fuel is ignited, he is no longer free to choose. Now he is bound by the consequences of his choice. Even if difficulties develop and he might wish otherwise, the choice made was sealed by action. So it is with those who would tamper with the God-given power of procreation. They are free to think and plan otherwise, but their choice is sealed by action. The woman’s choice for her own body does not validate choice for the body of another. The expression “terminate the pregnancy” applies literally only to the woman. The consequence of terminating the fetus therein involves the body and very life of another. These two individuals have separate brains, separate hearts, and separate circulatory systems. To pretend that there is no child and no life there is to deny reality. It is not a question of when “meaningful life” begins or when the spirit “quickens” the body. In the biological sciences, it is known that life begins when two germ cells unite to become one cell, bringing together twenty-three chromosomes from both the father and from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. The onset of life is not a debatable issue, but a fact of science.” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/.../reverence-for 5
ksfisher Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 31 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said: Criminalizing interstate travel? Who is talking about this? My understanding of the constitution is that interstate travel is regulated by the federal government. 32 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said: As it stands, I don't think I can support any politican at this point Sometimes I feel as though I'm looking to vote for the person who will do the least damage. 3
ttribe Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 12 hours ago, webbles said: Here's the actual law - https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03603.htm The new law can be found at https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/sb1164p.pdf. It is a bit longer so I can't just paste it here. Oddly, it has the following section: So, the new law doesn't repeal the old law. Does that mean that even when the new law takes affect, the old law would still be in force? If so, it makes the new law pointless since everything in it appears to be superseded by the old law. The AG appears to be saying the new law will not be effective because, as written, it does not preempt the old one. So, as of yesterday, Arizona has an outright ban with the lone exception being for the life of the mother (if I understand correctly).
smac97 Posted June 30, 2022 Author Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, pogi said: Contraceptive sells have increased through the roof. If true, that may be evidence against the "Of course women aren't using abortion for contraception" argument that we see here and there. 2 hours ago, pogi said: Hording is probably on the rise and accounts for a lot of it, but hopefully this change in law is going to have the positive effect of causing people to take prevention more seriously when abortion is no longer a viable option. Or no longer as viable. Here's the breakdown as I understand it: Category #1: Weeks/Trimester Restrictions on Abortion: Some states restrict abortions using a weeks or trimester measurement (and usually with allowances after the time limit as well), such as Iowa (20 weeks), New Hampshire (24 weeks), Pennsylvania (24 weeks), Michigan (19.6 weeks), Virginia (up to third trimester), Nebraska (20 weeks), Wisconsin (20 weeks), Ohio (6 weeks), Florida (24 weeks), Texas (6 weeks), Indiana (20 weeks), Kansas (20 weeks), Nevada (24 weeks), South Carolina (6 weeks), and West Virginia (20 weeks). Category #2: "Viability" Restrictions on Abortion: Other states use a "viability" measurement to restrict abortion (most with post-viability exceptions), such as Arizona (prohibits "post-viability" abortions except where life or health is endangered), Massachusetts (an abortion may be performed at 24 or more weeks post-implantation only in cases of life or health endangerment or there is a lethal fetal anomaly), California ("An abortion may be performed at or after viability only if the patient's life or health is endangered"), Washington (same), Hawaii (post-viability), Rhode Island (same), Minnesota (same), Montana (same), Delaware (same), North Carolina (same), Connecticut (same), Illinois (same), Maine (same), Maryland (same) and New York (same). Category #3: No Restrictions on Abortion: In contrast, other states have effectively no constraints on abortion, such as Vermont, Oregon, New Jersey, Colorado, New Mexico, and Alaska. Category #4: "Categorical-but-with-Exceptions" Restrictions on Abortion: And yet other states effectively prohibit abortions (apparently all with at least some exception for health/life of mother, and most with additional exceptions), such as Alabama (with exceptions), Utah (same), North Dakota (same), Georgia (same), Louisiana (same), Arkansas (same), Tennessee (same), Kentucky (same), Oklahoma (same), Idaho (same), Mississippi (same), Missouri, (same), South Dakota (same) and Wyoming (same). It looks like a substantial majority of Americans live in jurisdictions where abortions are legal for most or all of the first and second trimesters (Category #1 and #2 above), or else are entirely legal at any time during the pregnancy (Category #3). I can't help but think that in the long run, the hullabaloo will dissipate and most women in the Category 1/2/3 jurisdictions will go back to "business as usual" as pertaining to their sexual behaviors, because Dobbs doesn't really change anything for them. Women in Category #4 jurisdictions will likely be paying more attention to contraception, though. 2 hours ago, pogi said: We certainly need to do more to make it easily accessible and affordable/free to high risk populations. Agreed. 2 hours ago, pogi said: Preventing unwanted pregnancies is a realistic goal (as long as Justice Thomas doesn't get his way with his disgusting ideas on contraception) Could you elaborate? What "disgusting ideas" are you referencing here? 2 hours ago, pogi said: It would be hard to get students to prepare for a test if they know that when they fail, they still get a pass. Take away the easy pass and students will take more accountability/responsibility and prepare in the first place. https://www.ksl.com/article/50432024/amazon-rite-aid-cap-purchase-of-emergency-contraceptives An interesting analogy. Thanks, -Smac Edited June 30, 2022 by smac97
webbles Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 10 hours ago, The Nehor said: This is 1930s Germany stuff. It will be clean and civilized and explained as necessary to protect children and others. It will spread into more areas of life. It can happen here. There is nothing special about the United States that makes it immune to things like this. United States of 2022 vs Germany of 1930 is a lot different. First, Germany had an article in its constitution that allowed the President to supersede other articles that include citizen rights - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_48_(Weimar_Constitution) Quote If public security and order are seriously disturbed or endangered within the German Reich, the President of the Reich may take measures necessary for their restoration, intervening if need be with the assistance of the armed forces. For this purpose he may suspend for a while, in whole or in part, the fundamental rights provided in Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153. There is nothing like that in the US constitution. Second, Germany did not have anything like constitutional review that the US has. That allowed the Germany legislature (Reichstag and Reichsrat) to pass a law giving them power to overrule the constitution without any amendments - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 Quote Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain unaffected. The US system is well known to be difficult to change. It is one of the hardest systems in the world to change. That is one of the main reasons why the Supreme Court has become politicized because it is the current weakest link. If you control the Supreme Court, then you might be able to get around judicial review. FDR had this issue and threatened court packing because the Supreme Court kept overriding his laws. Pro-life supporters had this issue and took decades to finally get enough court members who would be willing to overturn Roe. But I don't see how the current Supreme Court would willingly allow the President/Congress to ignore the actual rights defined in the constitution (such as the right against unreasonable search and seizures). Some of the implied rights might be overturned, but not explicit rights. I've been following several of the court decisions and the court is definitely not a 6-3 court. There have been some really odd groupings in the rulings (just recently the court ended the "remain in Mexico" in a 5-4 decision with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh joining the three liberal members and Justice Barrett even agreed with the analysis but felt that it should have been sent back to the lower courts first). Even if you look at Justice Thomas's or Justice Alito's concurrences or dissents (which contain some of the more extreme ideas), you won't find them willing to ignore the actual rights defined in the constitution (though there are some discussions on whether the language actually talks about a right, such as "due process of law"). In addition, many of the states have constitutions that have more explicit rights defined in them. For example, 5 states have the right to privacy explicitly in their constitution (Alaska, California, Florida, Montana, and Washington). It is extremely likely that most of the abortion laws that are in effect will be struck down because of state constitutions. I hope that, because of Dobbs, we can get together as a nation and actually pass some US constitutional amendments. Some of the non-explicit rights should be fairly easy to get an amendment passed because so many people are for it (such as right to privacy, contraception, interracial marriages). Some others might be harder but probably still could get passed (same-sex marriages). We should have passed these as amendments years ago. As an example, there is an amendment that is currently pending since 1924, Child Labor Amendment. It gives Congress the ability to regulate child labor. A Supreme Court ruling in 1941 stated that Congress does have that power through the Commerce clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Darby_Lumber_Co.). The Commerce clause is one area that I could easily see being restricted by the Supreme Court. If we want Congress to be able to regulate child labor, then we should pass the amendment instead of depending on the 1941 ruling. 1
ttribe Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 42 minutes ago, smac97 said: If true, that may be evidence against the "Of course women aren't using abortion for contraception" argument that we see here and there. No more so than the run on toilet paper was evidence that people weren't using toilet paper for cleanliness prior to the pandemic. 1
smac97 Posted June 30, 2022 Author Posted June 30, 2022 1 minute ago, ttribe said: No more so than the run on toilet paper was evidence that people weren't using toilet paper for cleanliness prior to the pandemic. Touché! Thanks, -Smac
pogi Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, ttribe said: No more so than the run on toilet paper was evidence that people weren't using toilet paper for cleanliness prior to the pandemic. I am sure that hording has some part in this. However, people have always wiped their butts because there is no plan B for not doing so...ewww! In this case, people have not always used contraceptive because their is a plan B (abortion) that covers them. So, there is certainly more reason to use contraception now which may explain at least some of the increased purchasing of contraceptives. Edited June 30, 2022 by pogi
pogi Posted June 30, 2022 Posted June 30, 2022 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Could you elaborate? What "disgusting ideas" are you referencing here? The fact that he said Griswold v Conneticut (along with others) should be reviewed in his concurring opinion is disgusting to me. To call into question contraceptives in the very same swipe of a pen that one is overturning Roe v Wade is madness. What the heck is he thinking? Even if it could be over turned, the question is should it be overturned. Of course not!!! To bring up the idea while overturning Roe v Wade is absolute extremist craziness to me. The fact that he said it "should" be reviewed rather than "could" be reviewed in light of overturning Roe v Wade, comes off as political activism to me. He seems to be on a mission. I have a strong distaste for activist judges, especially when they are as extreme as him. I understand that he thinks that this ruling weakens these other cases, but the other justices seem to disagree. Alito made it clear repeatedly that this poses no threat to other precedents that do not concern abortion. Kavanaugh also wrote that "Overturning Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedent", practically calling out Justice Thomas by name. The problem for me in his statement isn't the question of could it be impacted or overturned (I don't think it could as the other justices don't seem to be on board with Thomas), but should it be overturned. Even bringing it into question is what is disgusting to me, especially in the context of what is happening with abortion. 2
Recommended Posts