It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade

[mtomm]

On 6/24/2022 at 11:08 AM, mfbukowski said:

You must live in Rightyland. Here in Disneyville, in the state of Leftyland, between Roe news and gun carry news, the protests could make the "insurrection" look like a walk in the park.

Thanks to our right to bear arms there should be plenty of very destructive weapons for it. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Just to make sure I am clear - even if the mother and the child both disagree with your assumption, would you still not support the legalizing of assisted suicide for non-terminal and otherwise healthy children? 

Your situation is too vague.  Do you mean mentally healthy as well because it is hard to see why a kid would want to commit suicide unless mentally unbalanced and therefore is incompetent.  Why they want to commit suicide matters just as why abortion is chosen matters to me as well. 

Most cases I would push for therapy and other forms of support. There might be extreme cases where I might, as there are cultures who use suicide as political statements and perhaps the kid is an activist and the cause just and extreme and they likely will save lives or perhaps the child has completely lost their family and has no one they know to care for them, a significant time has past and nothing has changed their mind and the foster care system is letting them down and I can’t find anyone to take them in and all they desire is to join their loved ones.  Not saying I would agree, but I would be open to at least listening.  Not going to say “No” for sure because my mind doesn’t work that way  and it doesn’t feel honest, but it is hard to imagine that suicide is some healthy kid’s answer to something.  Your circumstances seem highly unlikely.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Less killing of babies would achieve that result.  Any place children can be beared and born and raised.

Slave camps and prisons included?

[pogi]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

Your situation is too vague.  Do you mean mentally healthy as well because it is hard to see why a kid would want to commit suicide unless mentally unbalanced and therefore is incompetent.  Most cases I would push for therapy and other forms of support. There might be extreme cases where I might, as there are cultures who use suicide as political statements and perhaps the kid is an activist and the cause just and extreme and they likely will save lives or perhaps the child has completely lost their family and has no one they know to care for them, a significant time has past and nothing has changed their mind and the foster care system is letting them down and I can’t find anyone to take them in and all they desire is to join their loved ones.  Not saying I would agree, but I would be open to at least listening.  Not going to say “No” for sure because my mind doesn’t work that way  and it doesn’t feel honest, but it is hard to imagine that suicide is some healthy kid’s answer to something.  Your circumstances seem highly unlikely.

 They are suicidal so definitely not mentally healthy, but they are "otherwise healthy".

Our current law does not support assisted suicide of otherwise healthy children.  Do you not support the law as it stands?  If not, how would you change it?   What would be the enforceable conditions that would restrict assisted suicide and what conditions would allow for it?   Would you just leave it up to the mother?  

 

Edited June 27, 2022 by pogi

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Slave camps and prisons included?

I would hope so.  A hard life doesn't mean that death or no life is better.  Ending a life to save someone from hardship doesn't sound like something that God would condone (though I believe He would certainly have compassion for the choice).    

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

But what are the consequences of trying to distinguish between "convenience due to irresponsibility" and genuine good faith trying to do the right thing? There's no way to properly guage that, and there's so much moral hazard in such interference.

I say societies take an approach they haven't fully done: equal rights for women, support for mothers and babies, to put it simply. Make the world a better place for bearing and raising children.

Let's try that instead of wading into the murky waters of policing women's reproductive lives.

I think a lot of one and a little of the other would be a good option.  I don't want abortion to be illegal but neither do I support it being unregulated.

[smac97]

An interesting development in Utah: Judge issues temporary restraining order, banning Utah abortion law from taking effect

Quote

A Utah judge issued a temporary restraining order Monday, blocking Utah's new abortion law, SB174, from taking effect.

The restraining order is good for 14 days. Planned Parenthood of Utah asked for the restraining order while its lawsuit claiming it violates the Utah Constitution is considered in the courts.

Utah's trigger abortion law went into effect on Friday evening following a decision earlier that day by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization which overturned the Roe v. Wade decision. The new Utah law says abortions in Utah are only legal if the mother's life is at risk, if the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest, or if two physicians who practice "maternal-fetal medicine" both determine that the fetus has a severe defect.

Third District Judge Andrew Stone granted a request from Planned Parenthood to allow an emergency hearing to discuss whether there should be a temporary restraining order in the case. The restraining order will temporarily allow abortions to continue occurring as they were in Utah prior to the Supreme Court decision.

Planned Parenthood said it was scheduled to perform at least 12 abortions on Monday and asked the court to address the issue by Monday.

Planned Parenthood's lawsuit, which was filed on Saturday, claims that the law violates the Utah Constitution and the organization asked the court for a declaration that it does and a temporary restraining order that would keep the law from being enforced.

"Utahns who have relied on safe, legal access to abortion — access that has existed for at least five decades — will lose the right to determine the composition of their families and whether and when to become parents; their entitlement to be free from discriminatory state laws that perpetuate stereotypes about women and their proper societal role; the right to bodily autonomy and to be free from involuntary servitude; and the right to make private health care decisions and to keep those health care decisions free from public scrutiny," the lawsuit states.

In the complaint, Planned Parenthood said the law would be "catastrophic for Utahns" if it remains in place and argued it would criminalize health care providers and force survivors of sexual assault to disclose personal information in order to receive care.

Karrie Galloway, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, said in a statement, "Planned Parenthood will never stop standing with and fighting for the rights of our patients and providers. Not now, not ever."

The lawsuit named Utah, Attorney General Sean Reyes, Gov. Spencer Cox, and Mark Steinagel, director of the Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing. At this point, none of these parties have filed responses to the lawsuit.

A few notes:

1. The attorneys representing Planned Parenthood include J. Frederic Voros, described here:

Quote

J. Frederic Voros Jr. is an American jurist, hymnist, and author. He was a judge on the Utah Court of Appeals from 2009 to 2017.^[1] He is also the founder of the Western Hymn Writers Workshop.
...
Voros received a bachelor's degree in English from Brigham Young University (BYU) in 1975. He later obtained a Juris Doctor from BYU J. Reuben Clark Law School in 1978.^[1]

Voros served as general counsel to Ricks College in Rexburg, Idaho from 1978 to 1981, leaving that position to clerk for Dallin H. Oaks of the Utah Supreme Court.^[1] He practiced commercial litigation with the Salt Lake City law firm of Prince, Yeates & Geldzahler, and later at the firm of Poole & Associates.^[2] Voros joined the Criminal Appeals Division of the Utah Attorney General's Office in 1991 and worked as Division Chief of the Criminal Appeals Division from 1999 until he was appointed to the bench in 2009.^[1][2] During his time in the Attorney General's Office, Voros taught appellate advocacy at the S.J. Quinney College of Law for ten years, receiving the Peter W. Billings Excellence in Teaching Award in 2005.^{[3][unreliable source?]} He chaired the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Rules of Professional Responsibility and later served on the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Rules of Appellate Procedure for 24 years.^[2]

Voros was appointed to the Utah Court of Appeals by Governor Gary Herbert in December 2009. His appointment came after the retirement of Judge Judith Billings, who had been on the court since its creation in 1987.^[4] Of his appointment, Herbert stated, "Fred brings a great deal of knowledge and experience to the Utah Court of Appeals. He has significant experience in all areas of the law, especially at the appellate level, and will be a good complement to the six sitting judges."^[4] Along with Utah Court of Appeals Judge Stephen L. Roth, Voros was named the 2017 Judge of the Year by the Utah State Bar.^[2] Voros retired from the bench on August 1, 2017.^[1]
...

Voros founded the Western Hymn Writers Workshop in 2012 as a forum for hymnists in the Salt Lake City area to "sing, share, and workshop new hymns in the Christian and Mormon traditions."^[7] Many of Voros's hymns focus on themes of social justice and inclusion.^[8]

Voros and Catherine A. Tibbitts won the best anthem award in the 2014 church music submission competition of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the hymn, "This Day Is a Good Day, Lord."^[9] Voros wrote the text and music, and Tibbitts arranged the anthem. Voros and Tibbitts also won an award of merit in the anthem division of the 2017 church music submission competition for the hymn "What God Calls Us To."^[10] Voros wrote the text and Tibbitts wrote the music.

Voros wrote a children's book about the Salt Lake Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints entitled, The Stones of the Temple, along with illustrator Kathleen B. Peterson. It was published in 1993 by Deseret Book Company.

As you can see, he has a very impressive CV.  And he appears to be an observant member of the Church.  I think I would have great difficulty in advocating on behalf of Planned Parenthood.  Fortunately, that's not a scenario I will likely ever face.

2. I reviewed the docket for this case (link here).  I saved it at 4:00 p.m. today.  It shows that an emergency hearing was scheduled for today at 3:00 p.m. (see here).  Per the article, the judge "issued a temporary restraining order Monday, blocking Utah's new abortion law, SB174, from taking effect," and the order "is good for 14 days" and "will temporarily allow abortions to continue occurring as they were in Utah prior to the Supreme Court decision."

However, I am not seeing an order in the docket, or a minute entry indicating that an order is forthcoming.  I see that a proposed order was filed earlier today (see here), but not an order actually signed by the judge.  It is possible that the journalist just got it wrong and/or jumped the gun, but it is also possible that the court clerk has not yet updated the electronic court record to reflect the entry of an order.  We'll see, I suppose.

3. Utah, like many other states, passed a "trigger" law, Utah Code sec. 76-7a-101 et seq., that regulates abortion in Utah, but which was dormant and ineffective until and unless Roe was overturned.  Planned Parentood calls this statute the "Criminal Abortion Ban," whereas the statute itself calls it "Abortion Prohibition." 

4. A temporary restraining order ("TRO") is issued by a judge that requires a party (in this case, the State of Utah) to do, or not do, something (in this case, the order would be telling the state that the state statute that was "triggered" by the Dobbs decision from SCOTUS is not in effect, and that abortions can continue to be performed in Utah while the TRO is in place, which is typically 14 days.

5. Here is a link to the motion filed by Planned Parenthood and ACLU asking for a TRO.  The main arguments are:

Quote

 

First Point: "Without a TRO, Planned Parenthood will be "irreparably harmed" by the state law regulating abortions in Utah."

·       -"Utahns will suffer irreparable harm from forced pregnancy and parenting."

·       -"Patients forced to tryto obtain abortions services outside of Utah will be irreparably harmed by the Act."

·       -"The Act will irreparably harm those patients forced to meet the Criminal Abortion Ban's  exceptions for an abortion."

·       -"The Criminal Abortion Ban will irreparably harm PPAU and its staff."

Second  Point: "The public interest and balance of equities support issuance of an injunction."

Third Point: "This litigation raises serious issues of constitutional significance, and PPAU is likely to prevail on the merits."

·       -"The Criminal Abortion Ban violates Utahns' right to determine their own family composition, free from governmental interference."

·       -"The Criminal Abortion Ban violates the Utah Constitution's Equal Rights Amendment."

·       -"The Act violates the Utah Constitution's guarantee that state laws shall have a uniform operation."

·       -"The Criminal Abortion Ban violates Utahns' right to bodily integrity."

·       -"The Criminal Abortion Ban violates the Utah Constitution's prohibition on involuntary servitude."

·       -"The Criminal Abortion Ban violates Utahns' right to freedom of conscience."

·       -"The Criminal Abortion Ban violates Utahns' right to privacy."

o   --"Decisional privacy."

o   --"Informational privacy."

Fourth Point: "An injunction should issue without posting of security."

 

6. Whether or not a TRO is granted depends on whether the judge concludes that the requesting party has met the following requirements:

Quote

Grounds. A restraining order or preliminary injunction may issue only upon a showing by the applicant that:

(e)(1) The applicant will suffer irreparable harm unless the order or injunction issues;

(e)(2) The threatened injury to the applicant outweighs whatever damage the proposed order or injunction may cause the party restrained or enjoined;

(e)(3) The order or injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public interest; and

(e)(4) There is a substantial likelihood that the applicant will prevail on the merits of the underlying claim, or the case presents serious issues on the merits which should be the subject of further litigation.

You will note that these four elements are all reflected in the main arguments from the Planned Parenthood memo, summarized above, with one notable exception: "threatened injury."  This is the second element that anyone asking for a TRO must establish in order to get one.  The law firm that filed this is perhaps the premier appellate law firm in the entire state, so I'm sort of hard-pressed to characterize this omission as a rookie mistake or an inadvertent omission made during the rush to get the thing filed.  The foregoing four elements are black letter law and have been around forever.

So why are the lawyers representing Planned Parenthood not addressing the "threatened injury" element?  The "Second Point" in their memo references as "balance of equities."  Are they trying to argue that this is their version of the "threatened injury" analysis?

I can't help but wonder if directly addressing it invites a comparison between "{t}he threatened injury" to Planned Parenthood versues the "damage" arising from not enforcing the Abortion Prohibition statute (that is, that unborn children will be killed).  

The memois also pretty weak on the fourth element (substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits), though the alternative prong ("or the case presents serious issues on the merits which should be the subject of further litigation") may help them.

Will write more later.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

What happens to her then? Does she by force of law have to carry the baby until birth?

No.  The "force of law" did not make her pregnant, nor does it "force" her to remain so.  Biology does that.

I would imagine in a state where they do not make provisions for abortion on demand (i.e., for any reason) that the law will prosecute abortion providers who do provide the procedure on demand. In such cases, it would be by force of law that abortion providers not provide abortions for reasons not allowed in state law. I guess in those cases where it may be exceedingly difficult to secure an abortion in a state that does allow abortions on demand, the community/family/employer will either need to step up to get the female there or they will need to step up to support said female in carrying the fetus to term.

Is that what you understand?  

Edited June 27, 2022 by Vanguard

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I would hope so.  A hard life doesn't mean that death or no life is better.  Ending a life to save someone from hardship doesn't sound like something that God would condone (though I believe He would certainly have compassion for the choice).    

I think of Corrie Ten Boom who worked with the mentally ill even as the Natzi's were ending their lives because they judged death to be better then life for them.  She was imprisoned in a concentration camp under horrific conditions and was able to maintain a positive attitude throughout.  Her sister died in that camp, but just before her death she spoke the truth that "there is no pit so deep that He [God] is not deeper still."   I think of what God spoke to Joseph Smith in Carthage jail in saying that "all this shall be for your good". 

How can a mother know that she is not aborting a Corrie Ten Boom who can endure terrible hardship and still choose life and joy?  Most people who suffer the most terrible hardships still choose life.  I can't imagine how we think it could ever be justified to make that choice for another.    

[Calm]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

 They are suicidal so definitely not mentally healthy, but they are "otherwise healthy".

Our current law does not support assisted suicide of otherwise healthy children.  Do you not support the law as it stands?  If not, how would you change it?   What would be the enforceable conditions that would restrict assisted suicide and what conditions would allow for it?   Would you just leave it up to the mother?  

 

If they are not mentally healthy, they are not sufficiently competent and as minors do not have the right to refuse treatment as far as I know. 
 

I am not familiar with enough with the law to analyze it. And not in the mood to research. Sitting at the doctors office waiting for a tow truck. Our main car is in the shop, my husband’s motorcycle is at a dealership an hour  and a half away waiting for a tire and now our van got a flat (hit a rock or something my daughter says, she heard a think) and the spare is not available as the bolt to remove it sheared off. I am laughing it is so absurd, but my back is protesting. 

Edited June 28, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think of Corrie Ten Boom who worked with the mentally ill even as the Natzi's were ending their lives because they judged death to be better then life for them.  She was imprisoned in a concentration camp under horrific conditions and was able to maintain a positive attitude throughout.  Her sister died in that camp, but just before her death she spoke the truth that "there is no pit so deep that He [God] is not deeper still."   I think of what God spoke to Joseph Smith in Carthage jail in saying that "all this shall be for your good". 

How can a mother know that she is not aborting a Corrie Ten Boom who can endure terrible hardship and still choose life and joy?  Most people who suffer the most terrible hardships still choose life.  I can't imagine how we think it could ever be justified to make that choice for another.    

I love that book.  Corrie and her family are true heros.

[pogi]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

If they are not mentally healthy, they are not sufficiently competent and as minors do not have the right to refuse treatment as far as I know. 
 

I am not familiar with enough with the law to analyze it. And not in the mood to research. Sitting at the doctors office waiting for a tow truck. Our main car is in the shop, my husband’s motorcycle is at a dealership an hour  and a half away waiting for a tire and now our can for a flat and the spare is not available as the bolt to remove it sheared off. I am laughing it is so absurd, but my back is protesting. 

Sorry to hear about your car situation and back pain. 

I agree with your assessment above.  Treatment rather than death is the right approach with mentally incompetent children who think death is a better choice than life.  

Whenever someone becomes suicidal and thinks that death is a better choice than life, we deem them mentally unhealthy and therefore incompetent.  No competent person, by that definition, can choose death over life.  So why should a mother be allowed to support the mentally unhealthy and incompetent choice to end life, which is really only based on the assumption that the child MIGHT become suicidal if they are not aborted?

 Even when the child agrees that their life is not worth living we protect them still.  So the idea that abortion is justifiable on the basis that the child might prefer death over life, which by definition is a mentally unhealthy and incompetent position is kind of absurd.  We should not support mentally incompetent decisions of death.

 

 

Edited June 27, 2022 by pogi

[smac97]

An interesting comment on Justice Roberts' standalone concurring opinion:

Quote

Chief Justice Roberts is a practitioner judicial statesmanship that is occasionally difficult for an outsider to understand. Most famously, Roberts switched his vote on the constitutionality of Obamacare in the face of President Obama’s intimidation. It was a sorry performance that invited more of the same from those for whom it’s all politics.

In Dobbs, Roberts’s statesmanship resulted in an eccentric concurring opinion that none of his colleagues on either side of the case found persuasive. University of St. Thomas Distinguished University Chair & Professor of Law Michael Paulsen puts it this way in a Public Discourse column declaring the magnificence of the Court’s opinion by Justice Alito (I have split one long paragraph in two):

Chief Justice Roberts concurred in the judgment only, making six votes to uphold Mississippi’s ban on abortion after fifteen weeks. But the rest of his opinion is bizarre. Obsessed with a desire to rule as narrowly as possible, Roberts would have overruled Roe and Casey insofar as they invented a plenary right to abortion up the point of viability—that much is all to the good, and important. But, on the ground that it was not necessary to decide anything more, Roberts would have preserved Roe’s “right to choose” abortion so long as there was some “reasonable” opportunity to have exercised that choice at some (unspecified) earlier point in pregnancy—or at least left that question open for now.

This is contrived. It is the fetish of restraint, without common sense. Taken seriously, it would invent (or preserve) a judicial abortion right and draw a brand new, arbitrary, ad hoc, unspecified line—exactly what Roberts condemned Roe and Casey for doing—on the ground that “judicial restraint” requires it. It is as if an Olympic sprinter determined that he should always run races taking only two-inch strides, as a matter of his own practice. Little wonder that he was left behind in the dust and that no one followed him. I have long resisted the common criticism of Roberts as not being fully principled. He has done some great work. But not here. This opinion is out to lunch.

It seems to me that the statesmanship that is called to protect the Court as an institution is the kind that would let the Democrats know that intimidation, bullying, and threats of assassination are not going to deter the Court from doing its duty. Roberts should have exercised his discretion to join the majority without further ado. He is cutting the salami too damn thin.

It bugged me when Donald Trump and his supporters said things that seemed to challenge the concept of judicial review (see, e.g., here, here, here).  The same goes when Pres. Obama did it, and when Pres. Biden has done it (see here).  To his credit, though, Pres. Biden seems to be avoiding the corollary strategy arising from challenges to judicial review: packing the court.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

An interesting comment on Justice Roberts' standalone concurring opinion:

It bugged me when Donald Trump and his supporters said things that seemed to challenge the concept of judicial review (see, e.g., here, here, here).  The same goes when Pres. Obama did it, and when Pres. Biden has done it (see here).  To his credit, though, Pres. Biden seems to be avoiding the corollary strategy arising from challenges to judicial review: packing the court.

Thanks,

-Smac

To be fair Biden couldn’t pack the court so it wouldn’t make sense to grandstand for it even if he wanted to. It would take an act of Congress to pass a bill to expand the court and unless the filibuster is removed or a new exception to it put in place they need 60 votes (currently impossible). To kill the filibuster they need 50 votes and they would be lucky to get 48.

The last time the Court was going to be expanded was when FDR pushed through Social Security legislation and the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. FDR threatened to expand the court and the court let Social Security slide. FDR had roughly 75-80 votes in the Senate backing him to pull that off. Biden doesn’t have that kind of leverage.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

 

Whenever someone becomes suicidal and thinks that death is a better choice than life, we deem them mentally unhealthy and therefore incompetent.  No competent person, by that definition, can choose death over life.  So why should a mother be allowed to support the mentally unhealthy and incompetent choice to end life, which is really only based on the assumption that the child MIGHT become suicidal if they are not aborted?

For me, it is less about the prospects of the embryo because as you said, we cannot know what type of person they will be and more about the already living. I waited 8 years before my second child because I didn’t see it as right for my first to have to go without my care before he was able to be relatively independent outside of fixing meals and getting him off to school (which my husband could do if necessary) if I had the same issues as I did with my first pregnancy and postpartum. I did not have a third child because I felt I had made commitments to the first two to be their mother before I took on the mother role for someone else.  

My mother thought we would benefit from having two more children in our family, but we lost a lot of her involvement because it became necessary for her to be in bed a lot because of illness and fatigue (her doctors had told her to never have children).  She had problems with each pregnancy, but was able to come back after three.  She misjudged that she would be able to do it for the last two as well.

Even though we were very well loved and not deprived of necessities, you can see what amounts to abandonment issues in myself and my siblings because Mom disappeared from our lives for a good deal of it and she was there in the home full time, just behind a closed door.  A single mother who has to work two or three jobs to make ends meet?  It is going to be hard to give children the needed attention if she is also their primary caregiver…and then she gets pregnant.  Is it in the best interest of her living children to have her even less in their lives because of the hardship and toll of pregnancies and caring for infants?

Why is the life of the unborn more important than the already born dependent children?  Yes, Mom should be careful about getting pregnant in a situation where she knows it is tight, but sometimes health issues occur unexpectedly at older ages with pregnancy that didn’t earlier, minor in themselves, but coupled with having to work or care for a demanding family…it has a major effect and Mom may suddenly discover that she isn’t able to handle it this time around and recovery won’t be so quick as before.

I believe if there are others who are dependent on a mother who would not be able to receive the care they needed because of a pregnancy, that may be a valid reason for an abortion even if the mother and embryo are relatively healthy.   Preferably I would hope there are others willing to step in or ways to adapt, but in poverty situations, in families where Dad takes off or is unable to be there, I can’t bring myself to condemn a mother who chooses an abortion to benefit her children who she first committed to.  But it would need to be pretty clear there were definite major problems ahead and not just a guess there might be a more complicated, less abundant life. 
 

I should clarify that while I believe an unnecessary abortion  is a sin, the fact that there are necessary ones that are not endangering the health of the mother but are more related to economics…I believe it is a sin accounted to those who could step in and help create support systems for mothers in difficult situations so they wouldn’t feel abortion was a necessity in order to be able to continue care for their living children.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, Obehave said:

Less killing of babies would achieve that result.  Any place children can be beared and born and raised.

Abortion criminalisation would not achieve it. Do better to prevent abortion by helping women, NOT by threatening their safety and preventing access to medical care.

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, pogi said:

"Steward" is a good word.  If only it was viewed in that way, then this would hardly be an issue.  You are correct that the mother (both parents really) are the primary stewards of the child, but they are not the only stewards.  Where stewardship of parents fail, others are morally obligated to step in.  We are stewards over all of God's creation, including our brothers and sisters.  I am my brother's keeper.   Should we turn a blind eye to a parent beating or molesting their child and say "well, they are the stewards, I have no stewardship or moral obligation here!"  Does one think, "that mother just needs more support", or do they call child protective services to protect the child whilst that mother gets the support and help she needs to be better stewards of her children?   Is all form of "control" aka legislation, counterproductive to the wellbeing of the child?   "Support can change the world" in the absence of protective law is a naive and idealistic unreality.   While I agree with you in principle, I am no anarchist because I am more of a realist than that.  The law protects those who cannot protect themselves from those who need support and don't get it, or have all the support they need but still make poor and selfish decisions.  

Let go of the premise that this is all about women's bodies.  There are other bodies directly involved that deserve advocacy. 

If I had it my way, we would invest HEAVILY in support for mothers and children and prevention of unwanted pregnancies.  I am all about prevention and support of women and children.   But I would not remove the safety net for those children who need stewards where their primary stewards fail in their stewardship. 

You are not the safety net for the unborn, neither is the state or anyone else but the woman first. This in not an opinion, it is the fact. Whatever people have tried or try, she is still what the unborn needs to live and thrive.

You cannot make her want to be pregnant, even if you immobilised and drugged her to be a gestational vessel. 

Nature and all we know about infant health are telling you something: Don't threaten women and don't prevent access to reproductive healthcare in order to make them stay pregnant. This is the wrong way.

I'm glad that you also acknowledge the point of view of the unborn who might be aborted by the mother's choice. Women who abort acknowledge them, and women--including the same women--also acknowledge the unborn who are aborted naturally. We have the experience of pregnancies being started and stopped by our bodies.

This is part of life. The unconscious side of our bodies can often recognize when a fertilisation won't work in us or with us, and our conscious minds can do the same. We're given the weight of this process, others should not be making it heavier.

Show me some anti-abortion laws that decrease that load for women. More specifically, show me some which are a result of overturning Roe.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

For me, it is less about the prospects of the embryo because as you said, we cannot know what type of person they will be and more about the already living. I waited 8 years before my second child because I didn’t see it as right for my first to have to go without my care before he was able to be relatively independent outside of fixing meals and getting him off to school (which my husband could do if necessary) if I had the same issues as I did with my first pregnancy and postpartum. I did not have a third child because I felt I had made commitments to the first two to be their mother before I took on the mother role for someone else.  

My mother thought we would benefit from having two more children in our family, but we lost a lot of her involvement because it became necessary for her to be in bed a lot because of illness and fatigue (her doctors had told her to never have children).  She had problems with each pregnancy, but was able to come back after three.  She misjudged that she would be able to do it for the last two as well.

Even though we were very well loved and not deprived of necessities, you can see what amounts to abandonment issues in myself and my siblings because Mom disappeared from our lives for a good deal of it and she was there in the home full time, just behind a closed door.  A single mother who has to work two or three jobs to make ends meet?  It is going to be hard to give children the needed attention if she is also their primary caregiver…and then she gets pregnant.  Is it in the best interest of her living children to have her even less in their lives because of the hardship and toll of pregnancies and caring for infants?

Why is the life of the unborn more important than the already born dependent children?  Yes, Mom should be careful about getting pregnant in a situation where she knows it is tight, but sometimes health issues occur unexpectedly at older ages with pregnancy that didn’t earlier, minor in themselves, but coupled with having to work or care for a demanding family…it has a major effect and Mom may suddenly discover that she isn’t able to handle it this time around and recovery won’t be so quick as before.

I believe if there are others who are dependent on a mother who would not be able to receive the care they needed because of a pregnancy, that may be a valid reason for an abortion even if the mother and embryo are relatively healthy.   Preferably I would hope there are others willing to step in or ways to adapt, but in poverty situations, in families where Dad takes off or is unable to be there, I can’t bring myself to condemn a mother who chooses an abortion to benefit her children who she first committed to.  But it would need to be pretty clear there were definite major problems ahead and not just a guess there might be a more complicated, less abundant life. 

Yes, this is much more relevant to what I was saying.

A mother might realise that a pregnancy will prevent her from caring for her other children or even from saving another child. Think of the woman who is working three jobs and worrying the entire time about that one kid who needs help who no one else is adequately helping. 

In my experience, there is no suffering greater as a mother than not being able to help my child when I know they need me, or knowing I didn't when they needed me.

With this, I can imagine that women do find themselves in the situation where several months if being pregnant can trigger one or more critical failings in the lives of those in her care. Starvation, homelessness, breakdown of mental health, imminent danger the mother would have escaped if she was able, like fleeing a dangerous place including an abusive relationship.

[Ipod Touch]

At the end of the day, as a conservative and believer in individual liberty, I am extremely uncomfortable with the government dictating to individual women if/when their desire for an abortion is backed by a "good reason." I cannot imagine a more intimate and personal decision. And the last thing I want is a government bureaucrat pushed into the middle.

But abortion is murder!  Maybe.  Maybe not.  There is no objective basis on which to conclude either option.  So in the absence of an objective standard to encompass all situations, circumstances, and conditions wherein an abortion is "murder", we must err on the side of individual liberty.

If the GOP leadership pushes forward with a federal abortion ban, they are disgraceful and unprincipled liars.  If this issue really is about states' rights, then let the states craft their own laws.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Ipod Touch

[Daniel2]

This FB post has been shared across my feed the last 24 hours, along with a beautiful family photo of Juliet, her husband, and their three young children and linked to Juliet’s actual profile post:

“I’m Juliet, this is my family. We are active members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And last week I had a late term abortion. 

“About a month ago, we learned that our baby boy had serious physical deformities. I underwent a painful procedure to test for chromosomal abnormalities. A post-procedural ultrasound revealed that the deformities were much worse than the doctors originally thought. So much worse, that the test results were now irrelevant. I will never forget what the doctor gently told me. “This baby will not survive. It is not a matter of if you lose this baby, but when.” 

“My last miscarriage at 16 weeks resulted in postpartum hemorrhage, hypotension, an emergency D&E, and two blood transfusions. It was life threatening. 

“So when I asked how long I could wait for a miscarriage to happen naturally and my doctor said, “it’s already too late for that”, I understood. 

“Every doctor and nurse that I spoke with was gentle and understanding. In one appointment I asked my doctor how many of these procedures (late term abortions) were for people in my same kind of circumstance. Her answer was, “virtually all”.

“I was 16 weeks pregnant when I laid down on the operating table. It was the earliest possible appointment after the earliest possible point that imaging could clearly show the extent of our baby’s malformations. My doctor rubbed my leg as I gently fell asleep, tears streaming down both sides of my face. I woke up with an empty uterus, and a broken heart. 

“Abortion laws are typically blind to the complexities and nuances of the circumstances that necessitate an abortion. The issue has become so sensationalized, that the real life situations seem to be an afterthought.

“With legal abortions no longer being protected by federal law, I’m sharing these very personal experiences with you for a reason. I hope that when you have the opportunity to vote for state laws that regard the issue of abortion, you will think of mothers like me. 

“This issue is not black and white. Like almost every other choice we make in this life, the right one is personal. I’m very grateful I didn’t have laws to contend with while I prayerfully made it. 🤍”

Edited June 28, 2022 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

This FB post has been shared across my feed the last 24 hours, along with a beautiful family photo of Juliet, her husband, and their three young children and linked to Juliet’s actual profile post:

“I’m Juliet, this is my family. We are active members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And last week I had a late term abortion. 

“About a month ago, we learned that our baby boy had serious physical deformities. I underwent a painful procedure to test for chromosomal abnormalities. A post-procedural ultrasound revealed that the deformities were much worse than the doctors originally thought. So much worse, that the test results were now irrelevant. I will never forget what the doctor gently told me. “This baby will not survive. It is not a matter of if you lose this baby, but when.” 

“My last miscarriage at 16 weeks resulted in postpartum hemorrhage, hypotension, an emergency D&E, and two blood transfusions. It was life threatening. 

“So when I asked how long I could wait for a miscarriage to happen naturally and my doctor said, “it’s already too late for that”, I understood. 

“Every doctor and nurse that I spoke with was gentle and understanding. In one appointment I asked my doctor how many of these procedures (late term abortions) were for people in my same kind of circumstance. Her answer was, “virtually all”.

“I was 16 weeks pregnant when I laid down on the operating table. It was the earliest possible appointment after the earliest possible point that imaging could clearly show the extent of our baby’s malformations. My doctor rubbed my leg as I gently fell asleep, tears streaming down both sides of my face. I woke up with an empty uterus, and a broken heart. 

“Abortion laws are typically blind to the complexities and nuances of the circumstances that necessitate an abortion. The issue has become so sensationalized, that the real life situations seem to be an afterthought.

“With legal abortions no longer being protected by federal law, I’m sharing these very personal experiences with you for a reason. I hope that when you have the opportunity to vote for state laws that regard the issue of abortion, you will think of mothers like me. 

“This issue is not black and white. Like almost every other choice we make in this life, the right one is personal. I’m very grateful I didn’t have laws to contend with while I prayerfully made it. 🤍”

I don’t know where Juliet lives, but as I understand it, Utah’s trigger law, which took effect with the overturning of Roe, would not have precluded someone in her circumstances from having an abortion. Nor would a number of other such “trigger laws” around the country. 
 

It’s more than possible to craft such nuanced legislation even with the overturning of Roe. 

Edited June 28, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

This FB post has been shared across my feed the last 24 hours, along with a beautiful family photo of Juliet, her husband, and their three young children and linked to Juliet’s actual profile post:

“I’m Juliet, this is my family. We are active members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And last week I had a late term abortion. 

“About a month ago, we learned that our baby boy had serious physical deformities. I underwent a painful procedure to test for chromosomal abnormalities. A post-procedural ultrasound revealed that the deformities were much worse than the doctors originally thought. So much worse, that the test results were now irrelevant. I will never forget what the doctor gently told me. “This baby will not survive. It is not a matter of if you lose this baby, but when.” 

“My last miscarriage at 16 weeks resulted in postpartum hemorrhage, hypotension, an emergency D&E, and two blood transfusions. It was life threatening. 

“So when I asked how long I could wait for a miscarriage to happen naturally and my doctor said, “it’s already too late for that”, I understood. 

“Every doctor and nurse that I spoke with was gentle and understanding. In one appointment I asked my doctor how many of these procedures (late term abortions) were for people in my same kind of circumstance. Her answer was, “virtually all”.

“I was 16 weeks pregnant when I laid down on the operating table. It was the earliest possible appointment after the earliest possible point that imaging could clearly show the extent of our baby’s malformations. My doctor rubbed my leg as I gently fell asleep, tears streaming down both sides of my face. I woke up with an empty uterus, and a broken heart. 

“Abortion laws are typically blind to the complexities and nuances of the circumstances that necessitate an abortion. The issue has become so sensationalized, that the real life situations seem to be an afterthought.

“With legal abortions no longer being protected by federal law, I’m sharing these very personal experiences with you for a reason. I hope that when you have the opportunity to vote for state laws that regard the issue of abortion, you will think of mothers like me. 

“This issue is not black and white. Like almost every other choice we make in this life, the right one is personal. I’m very grateful I didn’t have laws to contend with while I prayerfully made it. 🤍”

My heart aches for people in these circumstances.

I do believe we need to legally differentiate between abortions for convenience and medical abortions, even though I don’t believe a baby not being able to survive long outside of the womb is always a legitimate reason for one. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 6/27/2022 at 8:10 AM, MikeFoxtrot said:

Next time, Gadget

Please address me by my screen name. 

[pogi]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

For me, it is less about the prospects of the embryo because as you said, we cannot know what type of person they will be and more about the already living.

I just can't get myself to see why it should be less about them, they are "already living" too.  I don't think it matters what type of person they will be, they deserve a shot to be the best that they can be.  

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Even though we were very well loved and not deprived of necessities, you can see what amounts to abandonment issues in myself and my siblings because Mom disappeared from our lives for a good deal of it and she was there in the home full time, just behind a closed door.  A single mother who has to work two or three jobs to make ends meet?  It is going to be hard to give children the needed attention if she is also their primary caregiver…and then she gets pregnant.  Is it in the best interest of her living children to have her even less in their lives because of the hardship and toll of pregnancies and caring for infants?

Are your siblings grateful to be alive?  Are you grateful for them despite the increased hardships?

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Why is the life of the unborn more important than the already born dependent children?

Not more important, but equally important.  Equal opportunities and equal share of hardships. 

 

[Duncan]

There is a currently sitting GA who's wife had 3 D&C's, I just wonder if those will now be constituted as an abortion. I can't imagine going to jail for something you have zero control over, she didn't choose to have a babies in those circumstances and having that procedure needed to happen, I wonder what the benefit of her in prison or paying a fine would be.