It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade

[T-Shirt]

On 6/29/2022 at 9:24 AM, Meadowchik said:

Cold comfort. I think a major issue people may observe trying to reassure women is that they won't feel safe because the law even as intended is wrong. Outlawing abortions after six weeks is a violation of their rights, for example, so they'll not feel protected when it come to miscarriages. 

It's very much like how when a person is betrayed one way, they cannot trust the betrayer to not hurt them another way.

Why do you insist on treating women as though they are not very smart?  Seriously, the only reason any women would have the kind of fear you are claiming is because you and people like you want it that way.  You continue to spread fears based on false and intentionally misleading information.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SkyRock said:

She has, many times.   She has been very very clear. 

Yes, she has and you are misrepresenting her by portraying her as women having the ability to abort in order to abort/do what they want being her top priority. 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

Interesting poll results released yesterday:

Quote

Released yesterday, the poll shows 75% of Americans agree that the Supreme Court should not be deciding abortions, with 44% saying states should determine abortion laws and 31% saying Congress should do so.  Just 25% of those polled agree with Roe, which mandated that only the Supreme Court should decide the issue of abortion.

The poll found 37% would ban abortion entirely with only rape and incest exceptions while another 49% support a heartbeat law banning aboritons after 6 weeks. Meanwhile, 72% support banning abortions after 15 weeks — which was the Mississippi law the Supreme Court considered.

Wow.  These are really encouraging figures.  From the above link:

Effectively half (49%) of those polled favor stringent restrictions on abortion (37% favor no abortions (with rare exceptions) and 12% favor prohibition after 6 weeks).

On top of that, an additional 42% favor prohibiting abortions after the middle or end of the second trimester (23% favor prohibition after 15 weeks, 18% favor prohibition after 23 weeks).

Only 10% favor the "abortion on demand, period" approach.  I wonder if advocates of this position realize just how extreme it is.  

75% of women oppose abortion either altogether or no more than 15 weeks, whereas only 69% of men do.  This rather deflates the "patriarchy"/"sexism"/"misogyny" arguments against restricting abortion.

Lots of room here for education, persuasion and resources to further move these numbers.  

Another:

 

75% think that abortion policy should be established legislatively (31% favor Congress, 44% favor state legislatures), rather than by judicial fiat.  Very cool. 

I think it is interesting that 31% want Congress to legislate it.  The two big problems here are

A) Congress is hugely divided, and nowhere more profoundly than on this topic, so the likelihood of them being able to pass such legislation is, I think, quite remote; and

B) I question whether Congress has constitutional authority to legislate abortion.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Even if Congress passes a law codifying the right to abortion, it may not pass a court challenge claiming the Constitution does not give it the authority to enact such a law, writes William H. Hurd, a former solicitor general of Virginia and now a member of Eckert Seamans. He also contends Congress can keep states from preventing women from traveling for abortion.
...

Supporters of a national Roe law may also rely on Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has defined that power very broadly, but it has also placed limits on that power. In a 2000 case, United States v. Morrison, the Supreme Court invalidated portions of the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

The court said that the VAWA intruded into the states’ traditional police powers and that it could not be justified as a regulation of commerce. The Supreme Court could reach same result if Congress codifies Roe.

The court could reason that such a statute intrudes into the states’ traditional police powers (which a decision overturning Roe would effectively restore), and that abortions are not economic activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. To be sure, a state’s abortion laws may affect whether some people choose to migrate to (or from) that state, but the same could be said for many state laws, especially tax and education laws.

Nationalizing abortion laws on the theory that uniformity removes an obstacle (or incentive) to interstate migration would open the door to federally mandated uniformity in these other areas as well. The Supreme Court may conclude that basic principles of federalism require keeping that door shut.

And here:

Quote

Politicians across the country have called for a federal law codifying Roe v. Wade after a Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn the 1973 landmark case, which made abortion a fundamental right nationwide, was leaked to the press.

The passage of such a law has already faced political obstacles, however.

In early May, Democratic members of Congress sought to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act, which aims to protect a person’s right to end a pregnancy, as well as health care providers’ ability to provide services to that end. That legislation did not pass the U.S. Senate. In fact, every Republican and one Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, voted against it.

Even if a bill making abortion legal nationwide were to be passed, it would likely face constitutional challenges from anti-abortion activists and organizations, and these petitioners would possibly have the sympathies of the conservative-majority Supreme Court, Northeastern legal experts point out.

“Opponents to abortion rights now have a relatively friendly judiciary,” says Northeastern University School of Law professor Wendy Parmet, a leading expert on health, disability and public health law, who directs the law school’s Center for Health Policy and Law. “Opponents would likely find ways to challenge a law legalizing abortion, likely on federalism or equal protections grounds.”

Under the federalism argument, anti-abortion advocates would say that codifying Roe does not fall under one of Congress’ enumerated powers mentioned in Article I of the U.S. Constitution or the 14th Amendment, according to Parmet.

“It’s a stretch, but there are arguments. They would cite the 10th Amendment,” Parmet says about potential challengers to a law protecting abortion access. “They would argue that Congress exceeded its scope of power.”

Returning the issue to the states has always been a necessary course correction.  I hope we can now shift into a "hearts and minds" phase.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 6, 2022 by smac97

[Chum]

On 7/1/2022 at 3:19 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

Nice job ripping my words completely from their context.

This is wholly false - to a point where it's kind of a bizarre accusation. 

Your justification for public shaming someone was one sentence long. It read:

Quote

You call someone you don't know from Adam, have never even met, and are extremely unlikely to meet evil?

I quoted the entire thing verbatim and rebutted that.

Just, odd.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

This is wholly false - to a point where it's kind of a bizarre accusation. 

Your justification for public shaming someone was one sentence long. It read:

I quoted the entire thing verbatim and rebutted that.

Just, odd.

You can quote someone verbatim and still rip the person's words completely out of their context.  That's what you did.  I stand by my accusation.  I retract nothing.  Deal with it.

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

Why do you insist on treating women as though they are not very smart?  Seriously, the only reason any women would have the kind of fear you are claiming is because you and people like you want it that way.  You continue to spread fears based on false and intentionally misleading information.

Don't speak for me.

I was very pro life for ages and spoke up a lot. Then women responded. Eventually I really listened.

And I know what it's like to have an unplanned pregnancy. Mine was twins and they're 11 years old.  I also know what it's like to have a life disrupted and ability to care for my kids compromised. I work sixty hours, seven days a week currently--trying to get out of the rent cycle that will only give me a life of poverty. 

Fortunately for me, though, I don't have to worry about an unplanned pregnancy because I have adequate healthcare. And fortunately I also have support. In the next few weeks I'll know if my mortgage has been approved which will change our lives for the better.  I've been sick during this time but have been able to keep working and hopefully the underwriter is getting a good reference from my employer.

But--to use my own experiences as an example--they are precarious enough that a pregnancy could turn it all sideways. And I am fortunate in lots of ways. Other women not so much.

By the way, poverty and scarcity can affect people cognitively. It can have the intellectual effect if sleep deprivation or the equivalence of losing 14 IQ points.

In short, I have never felt desperate enough to have an abortion. I have seven kids who I couldn't imagine life without. But I know I have access to more than the majority of women in the US. I understand that my situation could be horribly different through no fault or virtue of my own.

[Amulek]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I was very pro life for ages and spoke up a lot. Then women responded. Eventually I really listened.

And I would point out that one can "really listen" to women and yet come to significantly different conclusions on abortion. 

 

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And I would point out that one can "really listen" to women and yet come to significantly different conclusions on abortion. 

 

This is true, but I speak for myself, you speak for yourself, etc...

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

This is true, but I speak for myself, you speak for yourself, etc...

The unborn cannot speak for themselves.

Moreover, you have been presuming to speak for more than just yourself.  You have been referencing "woman" broadly and categorically, despite the fact that the vast majority of them disagree with your extreme "abortion on demand, period" assertion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 6, 2022 by smac97

[Kevin Christensen]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The unborn cannot speak for themselves.

Thanks,

-Smac

No?  Sarah Hinze clearly disagrees.  And had both the personal experience and done the research to do so.

https://www.sarahhinze.com/remembering-heaven/

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The unborn cannot speak for themselves.

Thanks,

-Smac

That goes without saying. Who can speak for them the best? The ones who carry them.

If you want to advocate for the unborn, you must advocate for their mothers.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Interesting poll results released yesterday:

Wow.  These are really encouraging figures.  From the above link:

Effectively half (49%) of those polled favor stringent restrictions on abortion (37% favor no abortions (with rare exceptions) and 12% favor prohibition after 6 weeks).

On top of that, an additional 42% favor prohibiting abortions after the middle or end of the second trimester (23% favor prohibition after 15 weeks, 18% favor prohibition after 23 weeks).

Only 10% favor the "abortion on demand, period" approach.  I wonder if advocates of this position realize just how extreme it is.  

75% of women oppose abortion either altogether or no more than 15 weeks, whereas only 69% of men do.  This rather deflates the "patriarchy"/"sexism"/"misogyny" arguments against restricting abortion.

Lots of room here for education, persuasion and resources to further move these numbers.  

Another:

 

75% think that abortion policy should be established legislatively (31% favor Congress, 44% favor state legislatures), rather than by judicial fiat.  Very cool. 

I think it is interesting that 31% want Congress to legislate it.  The two big problems here are

A) Congress is hugely divided, and nowhere more profoundly than on this topic, so the likelihood of them being able to pass such legislation is, I think, quite remote; and

B) I question whether Congress has constitutional authority to legislate abortion.  See, e.g., here:

And here:

Returning the issue to the states has always been a necessary course correction.  I hope we can now shift into a "hearts and minds" phase.

Thanks,

-Smac

Other polls seem to have different results:

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/27/1107733632/poll-majorities-oppose-supreme-courts-abortion-ruling-and-worry-about-other-righ

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/06/24/how-americans-really-feel-about-abortion-the-sometimes-surprising-poll-results-as-supreme-court-reportedly-set-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/?sh=39fa570a2f3a

This one seems pretty good for comparison purposes:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-americans-stand-on-abortion-in-5-charts/

 

[manol]

37 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

No?  Sarah Hinze clearly disagrees.  And had both the personal experience and done the research to do so.

https://www.sarahhinze.com/remembering-heaven/

Likewise Christian Sundberg, whose pre-birth memories include a miscarriage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PO-Op38o-k&t=5s

[T-Shirt]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Don't speak for me.

I was very pro life for ages and spoke up a lot. Then women responded. Eventually I really listened.

And I know what it's like to have an unplanned pregnancy. Mine was twins and they're 11 years old.  I also know what it's like to have a life disrupted and ability to care for my kids compromised. I work sixty hours, seven days a week currently--trying to get out of the rent cycle that will only give me a life of poverty. 

Fortunately for me, though, I don't have to worry about an unplanned pregnancy because I have adequate healthcare. And fortunately I also have support. In the next few weeks I'll know if my mortgage has been approved which will change our lives for the better.  I've been sick during this time but have been able to keep working and hopefully the underwriter is getting a good reference from my employer.

But--to use my own experiences as an example--they are precarious enough that a pregnancy could turn it all sideways. And I am fortunate in lots of ways. Other women not so much.

By the way, poverty and scarcity can affect people cognitively. It can have the intellectual effect if sleep deprivation or the equivalence of losing 14 IQ points.

In short, I have never felt desperate enough to have an abortion. I have seven kids who I couldn't imagine life without. But I know I have access to more than the majority of women in the US. I understand that my situation could be horribly different through no fault or virtue of my own.

None of this has anything to do with ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages.  Why do you continue to spread false information about treatment for these conditions as being potentially criminal?  It is nothing more than fearmongering in hopes of ginning up support for your belief system from women that you appear to think aren't very smart.  Why would you even want people to support your position if it is based on, not just false information, but false information that you are spreading?  If you are going to fight for a cause, at least do it with the truth.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Who can speak for [the unborn] the best? The ones who carry them.

I thought you have been going on and on about how dangerous, damaging, scary, etc. pregnancy and childbirth can be. 

If that is really the case, then it doesn't at all seem obvious to me that the person best positioned to "speak for [the unborn]" would be the one who has a real, personal incentive to avoid all of those bad things.

In fact, it sounds like the textbook definition of conflict of interest. 

 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Amulek

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

The unborn cannot speak for themselves.

That goes without saying.

Apparently not, since "I speak for myself, you speak for yourself, etc." doesn't account for the voice of the unborn.

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Who can speak for them the best?

The person or persons who have their best interests at heart.  Ideally, that would be (and should be) the mother.  But alas, there are times when the mother wants to electively kill her child.  In such circumstances, she is not situated to credibly claim to "speak" for the best interests of the child.

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The ones who carry them.

How so?  Can't you see a real potential for a "conflict of interest" here?

I am not saying anything new here.  Judges all over America make decisions every day in which they balance (A) the rights/interests/preferenced of the mother against (B) the best interests of the child.  It is frankly absurd to suggest that a mother is always and axiomatically "best" situated to speak, to make decisions about, the welfare of the child.

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

If you want to advocate for the unborn, you must advocate for their mothers.

I concur.  But there are circumstances under which the latter wants to electively kill the former.  In such circumstances, advocacy for both is untenable.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 6, 2022 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

26 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

None of this has anything to do with ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages.  Why do you continue to spread false information about treatment for these conditions as being potentially criminal?  It is nothing more than fearmongering in hopes of ginning up support for your belief system from women that you appear to think aren't very smart.  Why would you even want people to support your position if it is based on, not just false information, but false information that you are spreading?  If you are going to fight for a cause, at least do it with the truth.

CFR when I have made false statements.

[Meadowchik]

26 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I thought you have been going on and on about how dangerous, damaging, scary, etc. pregnancy and childbirth can be. 

If that is really the case, then it doesn't at all seem obvious to me that the person best positioned to "speak for [the unborn]" would be the one who has a real, personal incentive to avoid all of those bad things.

In fact, it sounds like a textbook definition of conflict of interest. 

 

There's no perfect comparison or analogy for the relationship between mother and unborn. Of course their interest is intertwined, and it is inseparable in ways more literal than anything else in human life.

On the other hand, flip the point: her pregnancy impacts no one more than her and the unborn. Conflict of interest is meant to protect involved parties from making decisions that--due to their own personal investment --will interfere with the best interest of the principle parties.

In pregnancy, the principle parties are the mother and born. The most principle of the two of them is the mother. 

[Meadowchik]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Apparently not, since "I speak for myself, you speak for yourself, etc." doesn't account for the voice of the unborn.

The person or persons who have their best interests at heart.

How so?  Can't you see a real potential for a "conflict of interest" here?

I concur.  But there are circumstances under which the latter wants to electively kill the former.  In such circumstances, advocacy for both is untenable.

Thanks,

-Smac

Advocacy for the unborn without advocacy for the mother is impossible.

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Advocacy for the unborn without advocacy for the mother is impossible.

Again,  there are circumstances under which the latter wants to electively kill the former.  In such circumstances, advocacy for both is impossible.

In legal parlance, this is a "conflict of interest."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 6, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

In fact, it sounds like a textbook definition of conflict of interest. 

There's no perfect comparison or analogy for the relationship between mother and unborn.

Agreed.  Nevertheless, where the relationship allows for one party (the mother) to electively kill the other (the unborn child) without the child's consent, then the notion that the mother "can speak for {the unborn} the best" is facially unsound.  There is, I think, an insurmountable conflict of interest.

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Of course their interest is intertwined, and it is inseparable in ways more literal than anything else in human life.

Nobody is denying that their interests are "intertwined."  We are instead saying that where Party A wants to electively kill Party B, the former cannot credibly say that she "can speak for {the latter} the best." 

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

On the other hand, flip the point: her pregnancy impacts no one more than her and the unborn.

Not sure how this is a flipped point.

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Conflict of interest is meant to protect involved parties from making decisions that--due to their own personal investment --will interfere with the best interest of the principle parties.

A conflict of interest arises when "a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, and serving one interest could involve working against another."

Here, the "multiple interests" are (A) the right/preference of the mother to electively kill her unborn child, and (B) the right of the unborn child to personhood, to life.

When effectuating (A) necessarily "work{s} against" (B), there is a conflict of interest.  

When such a conflict of interest exists, the person advocating for (A) cannot credibly claim to also be acting in "the best interest{s} of" (B).  

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

In pregnancy, the principle parties are the mother and born. The most principle of the two of them is the mother. 

As you said, there is no perfect comparison or analogy for the relationship between mother and unborn.  

That said, I am not sure what you mean by "{t}he most principle."  I can accommodate the argument that in a contest between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn, the latter can and should be given a higher priority.  That is a genuine moral dilemma.

However, in the main abortions hardly ever involve such a contest.  Instead, the question is between the life of the child and the preferences of the mother (the vast majority of abortions are, after all, elective).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 6, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Quote

The unborn cannot speak for themselves.

No?  Sarah Hinze clearly disagrees.  And had both the personal experience and done the research to do so.

https://www.sarahhinze.com/remembering-heaven/

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

This does not work in a social/political context.  I say this as a person of faith, as someone who is very open to this sort of thing in a religious context.  But as a matter of establishing public policy, the say-so of Sarah Hinze is not really "admissible" or probative evidence.

Moreover, your post only strengthens my point, which is that the unborn cannot speak for themselves.  Sarah Hinze is not "unborn."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 6, 2022 by smac97

[webbles]

On 7/5/2022 at 11:55 AM, smac97 said:

Hmm.  I'm sort of confused.  I had not realized that Utah was one of the states that allowed for elective "pre-viability" abortions.  But it's right there in the statute (Utah Code sec. 76-7-302) : 

"An abortion may be performed in this state only by a physician ... {and} only under the following circumstances ... the unborn child is not viable {meaning that the unborn child has not yet 'reached a stage of fetal development when the unborn child is potentially able to live outside the womb, as determined by the attending physician to a reasonable degree of medical certainty'}."

However, this statute seems to conflict with the "trigger" statute, Utah Code sec. 76-7a-201:

If I am reading this right, an elective "pre-viable" abortion is allowed under Utah Code sec. 76-7-302(3)(a), but no elective abortions (pre- or post-viability) are allowed under Utah Code sec. 76-7a-201.

What am I missing?

Thanks,

-Smac

You are missing 76-7a-301

Quote

76-7a-301.  Superseding clause.
     If, at the time this chapter takes effect, any provision in the Utah Code conflicts with a provision of this chapter, the provision of this chapter supersedes the conflicting provision.

Section 76-7-302 was passed in 2019 and was immediately put on hold by the courts (https://le.utah.gov/~2019/bills/static/HB0136.html).  Section 76-7a was passed in 2020 as a trigger law so it wasn't put on hold nor did it take affect (https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/sb0174.html).  But once Dobbs was rulled, Section 76-7a took effect because of 76-7a-301.  Then it was put on hold and the case against 76-7-302 was dropped (as it is extremely similar to Dobbs) so it is currently the law of Utah.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, webbles said:

You are missing 76-7a-301

Section 76-7-302 was passed in 2019 and was immediately put on hold by the courts (https://le.utah.gov/~2019/bills/static/HB0136.html).  Section 76-7a was passed in 2020 as a trigger law so it wasn't put on hold nor did it take affect (https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/sb0174.html).  But once Dobbs was rulled, Section 76-7a took effect because of 76-7a-301.  Then it was put on hold and the case against 76-7-302 was dropped (as it is extremely similar to Dobbs) so it is currently the law of Utah.

Ah.  Thanks for that!

-Smac

[webbles]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Other polls seem to have different results:

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/27/1107733632/poll-majorities-oppose-supreme-courts-abortion-ruling-and-worry-about-other-righ

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/06/24/how-americans-really-feel-about-abortion-the-sometimes-surprising-poll-results-as-supreme-court-reportedly-set-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/?sh=39fa570a2f3a

This one seems pretty good for comparison purposes:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-americans-stand-on-abortion-in-5-charts/

 

I'm not sure those polls actually have different results.  If you just ask the question "Do you want Roe overturned?", the polls show that the vast majority disagree with that statement.  But, as fivethirtyeight shows, when you ask the people about specific type of laws around abortion, the majority actually disagree with Roe (they want more restrictions than what Roe/Casey allows).

Pew Research page links to their results page (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/) which has a graph that appears to be really similar to what smac97 posted.

 

I think the polls should focus more on specifics about abortion instead of just asking about Roe or Casey.  Because it appears that most people don't actually know what Roe or Casey actually did.