Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, pogi said:

But differences in how I value them doesn't dissuade me from advocating for equal protection for them.  I place grater value on my children than your children, for example.  They are not of equal value for me (no offense), but I believe they still deserve equal protection under the law. 

Extrapolation from treating living children equally under the law (even though we don’t) to treating a child who is inextricably dependent on their mother during pregnancy in the same way as children who can be cared for and supported by others and even that can be removed from parents to protect them if necessary is unrealistic Imo and is more likely to cause more pain for all the children involved speaking as a whole rather than less. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

There is about a 0.0174% chance of dying from pregnancy. 

That you go to death of the mother when I just said “may cause not just medical life threatening situations because of screwed up society and individuals”  and Meadow has been addressing a much more extensive impact is not helping me see you understand our positions. 
 

That our society is okay with allowing situations the parents have no control over that would be labeled criminal neglect or abuse of their children if they did it intentionally is a huge problem that should be addressed first before abortion imo.  Our lawmakers’ priorities are so screwed up, imo. 
 

2.5 million children are homeless in the US, 1 in 30 according to one site.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have a good friend in Canada and they have their own problems.  We just don't pay a lot of attention to them.  Certainly not as much attention as they pay to ours.

Well, some Americans have practically forced their media products upon Canadians (laws had to be made to ensure a minimal level of Canadian content on TV while we were there), so not surprising that Canadians are more aware. 

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

And the day that we were forever freed from having to play that awful game cricket. 

And replaced it with the far inferior "baseball".

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Canadian's seem to have a lot of common sense. No baloney stuff.

Oh there's plenty of baloney.  They just tend to be less shouty about it.

05xyspnqvh351.jpg?auto=webp&s=ce84da6ce2

 

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Calm said:

That you go to death of the mother when I just said “may cause not just medical life threatening situations because of screwed up society and individuals”  and Meadow has been addressing a much more extensive impact is not helping me see you understand our positions. 

I went to the worst case scenario, not in an attempt to discount the other potential impacts, but to show that I am aware of and acknowledge the risks to the mother and her other children and am not afraid to go to the worst case scenario.  I have already addressed the other risks of non-life-threatening hardship mentioned on here a dozen times by now.  It simply doesn't pan out for me.  I can't find any moral justification for ending life to avoid temporary hardship (in cases where they are adopted out).  No one seems to acknowledge that even in the worst hardships imaginable, people still choose life.  The value of life outweighs hardship for most people - and those for whom it doesn't, they are considered mentally unhealthy and incompetent to chose anything but life.   The only true comparison is to compare the risk of life to life.  That is why I went to a mother dying.   

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, pogi said:

I went to the worst case scenario, not in an attempt to discount the other potential impacts, but to show that I am aware of and acknowledge the risks to the mother and her other children and am not afraid to go to the worst case scenario.  I have already addressed the other risks of non-life-threatening hardship a dozen times on here.  It simply doesn't pan out for me.  I can't find any moral justification for ending life to avoid temporary hardship (in cases where they are adopted out).  No one seems to acknowledge that even in the worst hardships imaginable, people still choose life.  Life outweighs hardship.   The only true comparison is to compare the risk of life to life.  That is why I went to a mother dying.   

And I don’t see how you can morally choose to create abusive or neglectful situations for children when it can be avoided and therefore it is morally wrong to ban abortions except in extreme medical cases before addressing the issues that lead to it, such as the over 400,000 children waiting to be adopted and those currently in foster care because parents are not able to care  for them because of economic difficulties.  If people want government to interfere in whether or not people become parents, they need to require government makes sure as much as possible safe parenting occurs.  If they don’t want do the latter , they shouldn’t be interfering in parents’ choices.

I see it like requiring parents to vaccinate their kids or be punished while pricing the vaccinations so high many parents can’t afford to obey the law.
 

I don’t think we will reach an understanding and I see us as just repeating ourselves at this point. 
 

What will happen to children whose mother gets in legal trouble for having an abortion? (Serious question…are there state laws that put moms in jail and kids in foster care if mom got an abortion? Does mom have to pay legal fees or fines which takes more money away from the care of her children?)

An analogy…I see banning abortions before providing better parental support like having a bunch of kids with Mom and maybe Dad in a life boat with barely enough water for all of them and at close to its maximum weight.  Adding a fetus/pregnancy to the situation pushes it perilously close to its limit.  If a storm arises, instead of likely staying afloat, they will likely sink.  Instead of having enough water to live, some will get dehydrated enough there will be brain and body damage.  Parents will be unable to make sure kids don’t do stupid stuff because of health issues or unable to pay attention to everyone and a kid or two or three may fall over the side and have to try and survive by swimming on their own.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

"Alright, so our new plan is to just flagrantly break the law and have our President issue pardons for it so we can do it with impunity."

Physician, punch thyself. 

Edit: Also don't even think of bringing up "civil disobedience", the whole point of civil disobedience is accepting the punishment of the law anyways as a protest at its injustice.

Actually I favor the flagrantly breaking the law thing and pardoning it due to the likely benefits. I suspect it is the only thing that could drum up bipartisan support for some kind of constitutional amendment to check and/or limit the pardon power of the President. It is a good thing.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Well that's one issue with trying to police women's reproductive health, unintended consequences of bad law:

When the intended consequences of a law result in the preservation of the life of the unborn child, I can't go along with characterizing the law as categorically "bad."

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Women who want their pregnancies and to birth healthy babies being threatened by laws that may target them if they miscarry, or endanger them if they have a dangerous pregnancy, or prolong the suffering of their child if the unborn has a condition incompatible with life.

I am not persuaded by this argument.  It is alarmist.  It's an argument from the margins.  It is an attempt to distract from the reasoned and reasoanble distinction between elective abortions and "necessary" ones.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Actually I favor the flagrantly breaking the law thing and pardoning it due to the likely benefits. I suspect it is the only thing that could drum up bipartisan support for some kind of constitutional amendment to check and/or limit the pardon power of the President. It is a good thing.

Ah, it's accelerationism then?

Actually I do like limiting the pardon power of the President, but if it doesn't work then we've opened a colossal can of worms.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Ah, it's accelerationism then?

Actually I do like limiting the pardon power of the President, but if it doesn't work then we've opened a colossal can of worms.

It was already open.

I am watching the 1/6 hearings. Every time I think we have hit peak stupid it always gets stupider….and often funnier in a gallows humor way.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

When the intended consequences of a law result in the preservation of the life of the unborn child, I can't go along with characterizing the law as categorically "bad."

I am not persuaded by this argument.  It is alarmist.  It's an argument from the margins.  It is an attempt to distract from the reasoned and reasoanble distinction between elective abortions and "necessary" ones.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, if you look outside the U.S., you'll see that it is in fact happening. If you do a little research on women being jailed for miscarriages in El Salvador, you'll see some very alarming stories. I think there is genuine and well founded concern that we could be headed this direction in some jurisdictions absent a Federal level law.

Edited by ttribe
Link to comment
1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

It was already open.

I am watching the 1/6 hearings. Every time I think we have hit peak stupid it always gets stupider….and often funnier in a gallows humor way.

Cassidy Hutchinson was a very damning witness, IMO.

Link to comment
On 6/28/2022 at 10:27 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

The decision to overturn Roe, was a result of deliberate, strategic court packing,

Well, no.  "Court packing" means "to increase the number of justices on a court and especially the United States Supreme Court causing the ideological makeup of the Court to shift."

That did not happen.

On 6/28/2022 at 10:27 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

not of the logic ultimately offered justify the decision. 

Can't go along with this, either.  It's like saying Donald Trump is "Not My President" (or, these days, "Joe Biden is 'Not My President'").  You can say that, but that doesn't alter the factual reality of the situation.

On 6/28/2022 at 10:27 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

Merrick Garland was Obama's nominee, certainly qualified to sit on the court. 

And yet he was never appointed to the Supreme Court.

Per Wikipedia, "There have been 37 unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States. Of these, 11 nominees were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, 11 were withdrawn by the president, and 15 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress."

"Woulda, coulda, shoulda" doesn't work in this context.  The absence of Merrick Garland on the U.S. Supreme Court no more undermines the Court's legitimacy (or the legitimacy of any of it's decisions) than do the absences of Robert Bork, Clement Haynsworth, etc.

Appointments to SCOTUS require the "advice and consent" of the Senate.  No senate rules were broken relative the nomination of Merrick Garland.  

On 6/28/2022 at 10:27 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

On the pretext of "letting the voters decide" in an election year, Mitch McConnell refused to let elected representatives decide, and then smugly shoved through three Trump nominees including two in an election year, chosen for the combination of right wing ideology and relative youth, in a election year in which the voters gave the Senate to the Democrats, which lets McConnell's reasoning for refusing to seat Garland sit on the Supreme court hang over his subsequent actions like the aroma of fresh meadow muffins, an extra taint for candidates chosen specifically to overturn Roe, who publically lied to Congress about what they would do about Roe

This is simply not so.  See, e.g., herehere and here.

Money quotes (from the first link) :

Quote

The dance that went on is that Democrats would try to get conservative nominees to say that Roe had been a precedent for a long time. The nominees would agree while not going any further. They’d often cite — correctly — the refusal to comment on contested questions going back to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s confirmation hearings. 
...
 

Typical was an exchange between Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Amy Coney Barrett during her hearings. Klobuchar pressed Barrett on whether Roe was a “super precedent,” or a ruling that no one thinks is in play anymore. Barrett demurred: “I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category.”

This wasn’t deception — it was clearly saying, if obliquely, that Roe was vulnerable to challenge. I’d prefer if nominees were less lawyerly, but they are lawyers and the long-standing politicization of the confirmation process puts a premium on indirection.  

Justice Brett Kavanaugh has been a particular target for post-Dobbs attack. Pro-choice Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told The New York Times that she feels he misled her in a private meeting. 

 

"A private meeting."  No recording.  No witnesses.  Mightly convenient of Sen. Collins to cite such an untestable-so-you'll-just-have-to-take-my-word-for-it basis for criticizing Justice Kavanaugh, particularly given this next bit:

Quote

The Times story doesn’t say that Collins asked Kavanaugh directly if he’d overturn Roe — presumably for good reason. The senator would have known such a question would have been highly improper. In fact, she praised Neil Gorsuch during his 2017 confirmation for saying he would have left the room if someone asked him for a commitment to overturn Roe.
...
It is true that in his hearings Kavanaugh leaned heavily on the notion that Roe was precedent and that it had been reaffirmed in Casey, so it was “precedent upon precedent.” Yet other Roe supporters didn’t mistake his meaning. As Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) told Kavanaugh during the hearings, “Your own words make clear you do not really believe Roe v. Wade is settled law since the court, as you said, ‘can always overrule its precedent.’”

In her dramatic floor statement supporting Kavanaugh’s nomination, Collins made it clear that she also understood that his commitment to precedent was not absolute. It would give way, she explained, “in those rare circumstances where a decision is ‘grievously wrong’ or ‘deeply inconsistent with the law.’”

The court held in Dobbs that Roe was, indeed, egregiously wrong. Collins might be disappointed, but she shouldn’t feel ill-used. 

Roe never deserved to be written into law in the first place. The conservative justices never said they would preserve it, and it would have been an egregious breach of their duty if they had. 

The notion of a "super precedent" is dangerous and constitutionally unsound.  It circumvents the amendment process.

On 6/28/2022 at 10:27 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

to secure the necessary Senate votes, votes, which, if considered in light of the number of voters the sentators collectively represent, do not represent the majorty of the US population. 

I can't go along with this, either.  Such after-the-fact "the rules aren't fair" arguments don't work.  We work with the system we've got, not the one you want us to have.  The Electoral College has on occasion yielded a result that "{did} not represent that majority of the US population."  That doesn't mean those results are illegitimate.

On 6/28/2022 at 10:27 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

Far from it.  (Democratic senators represent 40 million more votes than do Republicans.) Though the only ones who could not see that deception regarding Roe were Joe Manchin and  Susan Collins, who now declare that they were misled. 

Again, from Sen. Whitehouse: “Your own words make clear you do not really believe Roe v. Wade is settled law since the court, as you said, ‘can always overrule its precedent.’”

On 6/28/2022 at 10:27 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

Now, we are supposed to rejoice at how wonderful everything will be

I think we can appreciate the correction of the improper taking by SCOTUS of authority from the states.  

There is still going to be plenty of work to do.

On 6/28/2022 at 10:27 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

now that the Supreme Court has decided what is legal and acceptable

No.  SCOTUS has said that "what is legal and acceptable" regarding abortion is, in the main, a matter for the several states to determine.

On 6/28/2022 at 10:27 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

As LDS, I do not believe that life begins at conception, but before.  We don't know when the spirit enters the body, but we do have one hint in 3 Nephi: "On the morrow come I into the world."  What kind of life would I choose for my mother, the one to bear, birth, and then raise me, the one through who I enter into this world characterized not by absolutes, but of opposition in all things? If I have a choice, what would I choose for her?  If I have a voice, how does that enter in?  Do her circumstances matter, or just any chance for any kind of life for me no matter the length or quality and no matter what the cost to anyone else, especially that one who bears the most direct pain and responsibility?  Can individual circumstances matter, or is this an absolute which bears no opposition, no special cirumstances, no compromise?

I don't really understand your questions.

The life and personhood of the unborn child merits attention and consideration (and, often, protection).

On 6/28/2022 at 10:27 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

What does Jesus say regarding those who "bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers?" 

I don't think He meant "Feel free to electively kill in utero babies for any reason or no reason at all."

On 6/28/2022 at 10:27 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

The states which are most adamanantly anti-abortion are also those that provide the worst health care, the poorest school funding, the worst help for the poorest, and that tried hardest to resist and then remove Obamacare.

And the significance of this is what?

On 6/28/2022 at 10:27 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

There was nothing about legal abortion that made it compulsory for anyone, even when a person has difficult and complex choices to make. 

In the main, you are correct.  That said, there have been instances of "compulsory" or coerced abortions.

On 6/28/2022 at 10:27 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

It was simply one choice available to person most impacted. 

The "person most impacted" being the mother, yes?

Is the mother more "impacted" by an abortion than the child?  If so, how do you figure?

Again, the life and personhood of the child should be a central (though not exclusive or definitive) consideration.

On 6/28/2022 at 10:27 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

Does the power to compell choice for all, to have one circumstance fit all, to say, if a woman is raped or endangered in health, she just has to stay raped and face the danger and inconvenience, or go to prison for life, and not complicate other people's lives with socialist claims on the community for the next 19 years, go with priesthood?

There are a variety of approaches to these very difficult (and, numerically speaking, exceedingly rare) circumstances.

The vast majority of abortions are elective, not due to rape or incest.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, ttribe said:
Quote

 

Quote

Women who want their pregnancies and to birth healthy babies being threatened by laws that may target them if they miscarry, or endanger them if they have a dangerous pregnancy, or prolong the suffering of their child if the unborn has a condition incompatible with life.

I am not persuaded by this argument.  It is alarmist.  It's an argument from the margins.  It is an attempt to distract from the reasoned and reasoanble distinction between elective abortions and "necessary" ones.

 

Well, if you look outside the U.S., you'll see that it is in fact happening.

But it's not happening with any appreciable frequency in the United States, which was the context in which I was speaking.

I would oppose laws that punish women who miscarry.  I am in favor of limited exceptions to restrictions on abortion.  These exceptions pertain to statistically tiny percentages of abortions overall, which brings me back to my previous point: It is an argument from the margins, an attempt to distract from the reasoned and reasoanble distinction between elective abortions and "necessary" ones.

24 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I think there is genuine and well founded concern that we could be headed this direction in some jurisdictions absent a Federal level law.

We'll see, I suppose.  

If and when that happens, the electorate has some options now that they did not really have before.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The vast majority of abortions are elective, not due to rape or incest.

"Vast majority" understates it. Per the Guttmacher Institute (abortion advocacy institution), .001% of abortions are attributed to incest, .065% due to the women's life being endangered, .085% due to the women being raped, and .288% due to women's physical health being threatened. Let's throw in the .294% where the women's psychological health was threatened, though I'm nervous about this one due to diagnostic concerns. Finally, let us (generously and certainly falsely) assume that none of these overlap. That leaves...99.267% which are not attributed to any of these causes. 

Even if we throw in a 10% false-reporting cushion (meaning that the true incidence of these "exception-class" abortions is over 10x what has been reported), that majority is not merely vast but overwhelming. 

 

Edited by OGHoosier
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Can you quote the portion of the article which supports your claim? I don't see it. By the way, this isn't a very strong factual source, and the article is essentially an interview of one doctor and one doctor's opinions.

All 50 States have life of the mother exceptions. I’m not going to link to all 50 statutes. So, let’s pretend ectopic pregnancies are considered abortions, which is not likely. If there are life of the  mother exceptions this would ALWAYS be covered. 
 

Miscarriages would be the same. The baby has died. The mothers life is at stake if there are complications. (I lost enormous amounts of blood.)

This is not hard. 
 

Again, it’s fear mongering  to spread these lies. 
 

@Nehor and I covered state exceptions earlier in the thread. 

Edited by bsjkki
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

All 50 States have life of the mother exceptions. I’m not going to link to all 50 statutes. So, let’s pretend ectopic pregnancies are considered abortions, which is not likely. If there are life of the  mother exceptions this would ALWAYS be covered. 
 

Miscarriages would be the same. The baby has died. The mothers life is at stake if there are complications. (I lost enormous amounts of blood.)

This is not hard. 
 

Again, it’s fear mongering  to spread these lies. 

Right, so you're making speculations and assumptions.

No CFR supplied.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But it's not happening with any appreciable frequency in the United States, which was the context in which I was speaking.

Why would it when the law of the land has been Roe for how many years, 50?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Right, so you're making speculations and assumptions.

No CFR supplied.

 

 

 

 

Here is more.

https://pjmedia.com/columns/paula-bolyard/2022/06/27/fact-check-the-truth-about-miscarriages-ectopic-pregnancies-and-the-end-of-roe-v-wade-n1608551
 

And this. Find a state without a life of the mother exception. Enjoy. 
 

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-abortion-ruling-states-a767801145ad01617100e57410a0a21d

I find your CFR a bit tedious since Nehor and I covered it already. 
 

You really believe a woman would be denied life saving care for an ectopic pregnancy? If that happens, the dr. should be sued into oblivion.

Edited by bsjkki
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Here is more.

https://pjmedia.com/columns/paula-bolyard/2022/06/27/fact-check-the-truth-about-miscarriages-ectopic-pregnancies-and-the-end-of-roe-v-wade-n1608551
 

And this. Find a state without a life of the mother exception. Enjoy. 
 

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-abortion-ruling-states-a767801145ad01617100e57410a0a21d

I find your CFR a bit tedious since Nehor and I covered it already. 

If you covered it you could link those posts.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Well, some Americans have practically forced their media products upon Canadians (laws had to be made to ensure a minimal level of Canadian content on TV while we were there), so not surprising that Canadians are more aware. 

I don't know how we would force ourselves on Canadians against their will, but I agree it's not surprising that they are aware of us.  And I don't mean it as a dig against them.  It's just the truth from what my canadian friends have said (and from what my best friend, who lived there for 7 years, has reported).

They, in general, seem to care a lot about our politics while we, in general, seem to care very little about theirs.  During the elections every one of my canadian friends was posting articles about different candidates or policies, etc. and sharing their personal views on them (to the point that I had to snooze one until the election was over because it was all she was posting about and it was very opinionated).  I've never seen that reciprocated by any of my American friends when Canada holds an election.  

It's an interesting dichotomy.  

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

If you covered it you could link those posts.

If you have not kept up with the thread that is not my fault. Plus, I reposted for you anyway. And, it’s not my fault if you don’t like my sources. Prove they are inaccurate. Shocking..the media is biased in its coverage. 
 

https://www.lifenews.com/2022/05/17/no-ectopic-pregnancies-and-miscarriages-will-not-be-prosecuted-when-roe-v-wade-is-overturned/

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...