Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (1 Viewer)

[LovesMusic7360]

Not long ago Kari Lake proclaimed Arizona's abortion law was a great law and wanted it the law of the state.

Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.

As I have been saying since 2022, the overwhelming vast majority of women aren't going to vote for the man who proudly boasts that he got rid of Roe V. Wade. Nor are those women going to vote for a forced birther politician.

Turns out, republican belief in "pro life" was all just lies to get votes. Who is surprised? I sure am not.

How many forced birthers will do the same about face?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ka ... r-BB1ltx3I.

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake is actively lobbying state lawmakers to overturn a 160-year-old law she once supported that bans abortion in almost all cases, a source with knowledge of her efforts told CNN.

 

[RobF]

Am just now reading that in the draft opinion it is pointed out that “the domestic supply of infants” to adopt will be a real plus from this ruling. I don’t know what to say, other than they view women who will be impacted by this as just convenient sources for the adoption industry.

I'd seen that mentioned, but without a direct quote, which always makes me slightly suspicious, so I had a look to see what it says.

The opinion itself just says that "a woman who puts her newborn up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home," offering this as an argument for why abortion should be restricted.

The part about domestic supply being "virtually nonexistent" is in a footnote offering a citation in support of that, noting that demand for babies outstrips the numbers of infants put up for adoption.

So the argument it's directly making is that any increase in babies put up for adoption due to restricting abortion would be met by the demand. You could infer an argument that this would be a good thing in relation to that existing demand, but as far as I can see, it's not explicitly making that argument.

Obviously that's not an argument in support of the opinion. Just that it's important to keep the criticism of it as objective and accurate as possible.

 

[MT15]

It’s a bit darker than that, IMO, Rob. I read a piece in Salon after that quote that documented the practices of homes for unwed mothers back before Roe. They had some traumatic practices.

I remember reading that Barrett in particular made that point during the arguments of this case. But reality doesn’t support Barrett’s view. Her view was that because we had “safe haven” now, and there isn’t the stigma there used to be for unwed mothers, then abortion is no longer necessary.

So, a couple of things about that view: while I saw a study that said that abortion wasn’t necessarily any more likely to bring about depression than giving birth, giving up a baby for adoption, whether through abandonment or through the adoption industry is quite likely to have lasting emotional and psychological affects. Women tend to feel a huge amount of guilt over that for decades if not their whole lives. As we got further from this stigma for unwed mothers, women who cannot care for their children are leaning on family rather than adoption.

It’s hard to escape the notion that this is a pretty callous way of looking at this dynamic. This view seems to be making the case that increasing the number of infants available for adoption in a society is a good thing. It’s not. A society that willfully increases the number of infants available for adoption is treating these human beings as a commodity. There are ten thousand or so children who age out of foster care in the US every year. What will be the result if we willfully increase the number of kids going into the system?

 

[SystemShock]

Is he speaking as President Biden, or as Joe Biden?

Really?

 

[DaveXA]

It’s a bit darker than that, IMO, Rob. I read a piece in Salon after that quote that documented the practices of homes for unwed mothers back before Roe. They had some traumatic practices.

I remember reading that Barrett in particular made that point during the arguments of this case. But reality doesn’t support Barrett’s view. Her view was that because we had “safe haven” now, and there isn’t the stigma there used to be for unwed mothers, then abortion is no longer necessary.

So, a couple of things about that view: while I saw a study that said that abortion wasn’t necessarily any more likely to bring about depression than giving birth, giving up a baby for adoption, whether through abandonment or through the adoption industry is quite likely to have lasting emotional and psychological affects. Women tend to feel a huge amount of guilt over that for decades if not their whole lives. As we got further from this stigma for unwed mothers, women who cannot care for their children are leaning on family rather than adoption.

It’s hard to escape the notion that this is a pretty callous way of looking at this dynamic. This view seems to be making the case that increasing the number of infants available for adoption in a society is a good thing. It’s not. A society that willfully increases the number of infants available for adoption is treating these human beings as a commodity. There are ten thousand or so children who age out of foster care in the US every year. What will be the result if we willfully increase the number of kids going into the system?

While I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment, we're all viewed as commodities in a utilitarian sense. We are part of the national employment numbers, part of the economy, part of the value of a business. In military speak, there's even a dollar amount assigned to the value of a soldier (healthy, injured or dead) that goes into battle planning and assessment. There's much made of a person's net worth. So, it's not surprising, and not nefarious to point out how an increase in the infant pool so to speak can impact things like adoption. I totally get that the argument shouldn't be reduced to that, but in this lengthy draft, it's actually not a critical point, but rather an add-on to the overall argument.

I get making an emotional appeal on this point, but I'm not seeing that comment in the same way. I get the why of it though. It's a fair observation at least.

 

[superchuck500]

One thread of this that I’m interested to see if this comes to pass and the state houses start getting aggressive with these highly punitive laws - is whether there’s any resistance from the less radical, pro-business wing of the GOP. Yes they have been run out through the primaries but I think they still exist and the business interests at the state level are more powerful.

But with an aggressive law that makes a fertilized egg a person and subjects pregnant women (who might not even know they’re pregnant) to criminal liability even murder for things like Plan B or in cases of rape or life threatening pregnancies, is the state going to be able to recruit new business? Is the large corporation going to build a new facility there? Will executives and other recruited classes be willing to relocate there with their families with girls? Will young women choose to go to college or graduate or trade schools there? Will your own young women residents leave (go to college elsewhere) as soon as they are able? Will the state be able to attract or retain national events like NCAA tournament or similar?

I think the answer to many of these questions will be no.

It’s one thing to take a pro-life stance and outlaw abortion in your state. But I think these laws (LA’s bill for example) can get so overzealous and punitive that they can bring a whole package of adverse consequences, mainly to business and the kind of activity a state needs to thrive. I’m very curious to see how the factions line up on these kinds of laws, LA looking like an obvious test case. Louisiana does indeed have interests that sometimes align to block the really extreme proposals.

 

[SystemShock]

I'd seen that mentioned, but without a direct quote, which always makes me slightly suspicious, so I had a look to see what it says.

The opinion itself just says that "a woman who puts her newborn up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home," offering this as an argument for why abortion should be restricted.

The part about domestic supply being "virtually nonexistent" is in a footnote offering a citation in support of that, noting that demand for babies outstrips the numbers of infants put up for adoption.

So the argument it's directly making is that any increase in babies put up for adoption due to restricting abortion would be met by the demand. You could infer an argument that this would be a good thing in relation to that existing demand, but as far as I can see, it's not explicitly making that argument.

Obviously that's not an argument in support of the opinion. Just that it's important to keep the criticism of it as objective and accurate as possible.

Unfortunately, that claim is a big pile of bullshirt. Adoption rates were down significantly even before the pandemic started. And the lengthy U.S. process for adopting U.S. children almost guarantees a baby will not be adopted as a baby; a toddler, maybe. This process also favors adoptions outside of the U.S. and not just because of the time it takes to finalize the adoption.

And it is expensive.

So, no, there is no going to be a baby version of a bread line in Cuba to adopt U.S. children. What there is going to be, more infants and adolescents who will require more social services and more government money, which the GOP will immediately refuse to pay, of course.

 

[SystemShock]

One thread of this that I’m interested to see if this comes to pass and the state houses start getting aggressive with these highly punitive laws - is whether there’s any resistance from the less radical, pro-business wing of the GOP. Yes they have been run out through the primaries but I think they still exist and the business interests at the state level are more powerful.

But with an aggressive law that makes a fertilized egg a person and subjects pregnant women (who might not even know they’re pregnant) to criminal liability even murder for things like Plan B or in cases of rape or life threatening pregnancies, is the state going to be able to recruit new business? Is the large corporation going to build a new facility there? Will executives and other recruited classes be willing to relocate there with their families with girls? Will young women choose to go to college or graduate or trade schools there? Will your own young women residents leave (go to college elsewhere) as soon as they are able? Will the state be able to attract or retain national events like NCAA tournament or similar?

I think the answer to many of these questions will be no.

It’s one thing to take a pro-life stance and outlaw abortion in your state. But I think these laws (LA’s bill for example) can get so overzealous and punitive that they can bring a whole package of adverse consequences, mainly to business and the kind of activity a state needs to thrive. I’m very curious to see how the factions line up on these kinds of laws, LA looking like an obvious test case. Louisiana does indeed have interests that sometimes align to block the really extreme proposals.

How's the GOP doing so far?

At least you'll know in which state you'll have no issue finding where to get your hobby supplies and chicken sandwiches.

 

[DaveXA]

Unfortunately, that claim is a big pile of bullshirt. Adoption rates were down significantly even before the pandemic started. And the lengthy U.S. process for adopting U.S. children almost guarantees a baby will not be adopted as a baby; a toddler, maybe. This process also favors adoptions outside of the U.S. and not just because of the time it takes to finalize the adoption.

And it is expensive.

So, no, there is no going to be a baby version of a bread line in Cuba to adopt U.S. children. What there is going to be, more infants and adolescents who will require more social services and more government money, which the GOP will immediately refuse to pay, of course.

That's a good point. The hypocrisy of Republicans on being "pro-life" and not providing nearly enough funding of social services to support them after birth has bothered me for a long time. I always embraced the term compassionate conservative, but the Republican Party used it for nothing other than a feel good catch-phrase.

 

[Optimus Prime]

At the end of the day this is all Mitch McConnell’s doing
==============


So Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell thinks the leak of the Supreme Court’s draft opinion overturning Roe is a “toxic spectacle” and an “attack.” Chief Justice John Roberts calls it a “betrayal.”


Cry me a river.


There is indeed a toxic spectacle and a betrayal going on here, but it isn’t the leak. It’s the betrayal of democracy by McConnell’s Republicans and the toxic spectacle of the Roberts court aiding it.

The reported 5-to-4 split on the draft shows that this cataclysmic ruling would be forced on the public by the narrowest possible majority.

This means the ruling is possible only because of the seat on the court McConnell and his Republican colleagues effectively stole by refusing for 293 days to confirm — or even consider — President Barack Obama’s duly nominated candidate Merrick Garland.


Republicans handed that seat in 2017 to Neil Gorsuch — in the process going “nuclear” and eliminating the filibuster so that only Republican votes were needed for confirmation.


Then, in a feat of astounding hypocrisy, McConnell’s Republicans reversed their pious claim that Supreme Court vacancies late in a presidency should be left to the “next president” and confirmed Amy Coney Barrett eight days before Joe Biden was elected president — essentially stealing a second seat.


Some justices reported by Politico to be voting to overturn Roe now stand accused by Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) of misrepresenting their positions on the “super precedent” during their Senate confirmations………

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/06/supreme-court-hacks-betray-democracy/

 

[RobF]

Unfortunately, that claim is a big pile of bullshirt. Adoption rates were down significantly even before the pandemic started. And the lengthy U.S. process for adopting U.S. children almost guarantees a baby will not be adopted as a baby; a toddler, maybe. This process also favors adoptions outside of the U.S. and not just because of the time it takes to finalize the adoption.

I wouldn't be surprised. I know in the UK it's very much the case that there are far more people looking to adopt babies than there are babies put up for adoption, but I'm not that familiar with the situation in the US.

But to be very clear, I'm not saying, "mothers forced to go through pregnancy won't have to worry about there not being anyone to adopt their baby" isn't a terrible argument I'm only noting that it is the argument being made in the opinion. I very much think it is a bad argument.

In fact, the entire section it's in is pretty shoddy IMO. Excerpt follows:

... Abortion is nothing new. It has been addressed by lawmakers for centuries, and the fundamental moral question that it poses is ageless.​

​

Defenders of Roe and Casey do not claim that any new scientific learning calls for a different answer to the underlying moral question, but they do contend that changes in society require the recognition of a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Without the availability of abortion, they maintain, people will be inhibited from exercising their freedom to choose the types of relationships they desire, and women will be unable to compete with men in the workplace and in other endeavors.​

​

Americans who believe that abortion should be restricted press countervailing arguments about modern developments. They note that attitudes about the pregnancy of unmarried women have changed drastically; that federal and state laws ban discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, that leave for pregnancy and childbirth are now guaranteed by law in many cases, that the costs of medical care associated with pregnancy are covered by insurance or government assistance; that States have increasingly adopted "safe haven" laws, which generally allow women to drop off babies anonymously; and that a woman who puts her newborn up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home. ...​

That reads to me as a highly skewed misrepresentation of the position of those defending the right to obtain an abortion, essentially setting up a straw man, while the arguments presented against it there seem to be... stretching somewhat. Like in, 'leave for pregnancy and childbirth are now guaranteed by law in many cases'... I feel like the phrase "in many cases" is doing a lot of work there. I'm also not entirely convinced the costs are entirely covered. And I agree that the mere theoretical availability of someone who might adopt a baby doesn't mean adoptions will happen, or that they will happen in an acceptable way, and I agree entirely with @MT15 that adoption has its own impact on the mother.

And I don't think that even addresses the reality. The premise is essentially that someone wishing to obtain an abortion can only be doing so because they're worried about people judging them, or discrimination, or work, or the costs of pregnancy, or not being able to dump the baby anonymously (!), or that no-one would want it.

And I just don't think that's the reality. "I did need an abortion, but now I know someone will probably adopt a baby if I make it through forty weeks of pregnancy, I'm all good!" I don't think so somehow.

For completeness, the citation about adoption (which is where the 'domestic supply' bit appears to be) is as follows:

See, e.g., Centers for Disease Control, Adoption Experiences of Women and Men and Demand for Children to Adopt by Women 18-44 Years of Age in the United States 16 (Aug. 2008) ("[N]early 1 million women were seeking to adopt children in 2002 (i.e., they were in demand for a child), whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent."); Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics, Adoption and nonbiological parenting, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/a-keystate.htm#adoption (showing that approximately 3.1 million women between the ages of 18-49 has ever "[t]aken steps to adopt a child" based on data collected from 2015-2019).​

The link appears to be wrong - it's actually https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/a.htm#adoption I believe.

 

[MT15]

I just saw this really horrible take - just completely sanctimonious and dishonest.



No, they just fire bombed clinics and murdered doctors in church. I suppose she thinks nobody remembers those days.

Oh I like this reply:

 

[MT15]

Here is a wonderful, truly Christian response to this issue. It’s the opposite of what the Court and Republicans are doing:

 

[MT15]

Make them stop being stupid:

 

[MT15]

 

[DaveXA]

What is Plan B? I'm not familiar with that.

 

[zztop]

I'm about done with men making clueless laws

Also "domestic supply of infants" seriously.. what the fork

 

[brandon]

What is Plan B? I'm not familiar with that.

Morning-after pill.

Plan B One-Step® | Morning After Pill

Plan B, sometimes referred to as the morning after pill, is emergency contraception that helps prevent pregnancy within 72 hours after unprotected sex.

www.planbonestep.com

 

[wardorican]

One thread of this that I’m interested to see if this comes to pass and the state houses start getting aggressive with these highly punitive laws - is whether there’s any resistance from the less radical, pro-business wing of the GOP. Yes they have been run out through the primaries but I think they still exist and the business interests at the state level are more powerful.

But with an aggressive law that makes a fertilized egg a person and subjects pregnant women (who might not even know they’re pregnant) to criminal liability even murder for things like Plan B or in cases of rape or life threatening pregnancies, is the state going to be able to recruit new business? Is the large corporation going to build a new facility there? Will executives and other recruited classes be willing to relocate there with their families with girls? Will young women choose to go to college or graduate or trade schools there? Will your own young women residents leave (go to college elsewhere) as soon as they are able? Will the state be able to attract or retain national events like NCAA tournament or similar?

I think the answer to many of these questions will be no.

It’s one thing to take a pro-life stance and outlaw abortion in your state. But I think these laws (LA’s bill for example) can get so overzealous and punitive that they can bring a whole package of adverse consequences, mainly to business and the kind of activity a state needs to thrive. I’m very curious to see how the factions line up on these kinds of laws, LA looking like an obvious test case. Louisiana does indeed have interests that sometimes align to block the really extreme proposals.

And what's the burden of proof? like, how do you prove someone someone had an egg fertilized, and then they took something that didn't allow it to attach?

Like, a full on abortion, ok, you can prove. A morning after pill ending a fertilization is very different.