Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (9 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 1 more.
    • Total: 10 (members: 6, guests: 4)
    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    Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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.
     
    Found a little more information on this vote. Democrats blocked Ernst’s bill because it didn’t include Plan B.



     
    MT15 said:
    This isn’t the House, this is the freaking Senate. There are zero normal people left in the Republican Party. They need to all be voted out.

    Click to expand...

    And Trump didn't make these people this way. They were always this way, they just kept it a secret and were pursing their agenda at a slow, incremental pace. All Trump did was pull back the veil of secrecy and shift the pace of the agenda into warp speed.

    Since Trump has gotten away with throwing away the dog whistle to shout from the rooftops, they feel bold enough to do the same.

    Trump exposed the Republican party for what it had already become. He didn't corrupt it.
     
    After four rounds of in vitro fertilization, Kristen Anaya and her husband were elated to discover Anaya was finally pregnant - with a baby girl - last April. The 42-year-old Dallas-area woman called IVF a “long and emotional journey”. Despite the cost and struggle, the process was well worth it for Anaya, who wanted to grow her family.

    However, the good news would give way to an unexpectedly grueling and traumatic pregnancy that forced her to suffer for days before receiving care, due to Texas’s severe abortion bans.

    At nearly 17 weeks pregnant, Anaya began experiencing heavy cramping and soon felt her water break. She was rushed to the hospital, where she continued to lose amniotic fluid.

    She developed a high fever and began shaking so uncontrollably that nurses had difficulty placing an IV. Anaya was in the early stages of sepsis, a potentially life-threatening condition.

    Her OB-GYN explained that nothing could be done to save her daughter, whom Anaya had already named Tylee. Adding to Anaya’s shock, the physician informed her that to stop the infection she needed immediate abortion care, but because of Texas laws, she would have to “keep getting sicker” until the doctor could “prove” to the hospital that her life was on the line.

    “I went from absolute terror, to sadness, to confusion all within minutes,” Anaya said. “I just learned that my child was not going to be born alive, and now the doctor is telling me I would have to put my life at risk before getting help. I went into complete shock. It was unbearable to process.”

    Anaya later joined a lawsuit asking the state to clarify when women in situations like hers can receive live-saving abortions, but last week, the Texas supreme court rejected the suit. The all-Republican court unanimously agreed the law is clear as-is.

    Anaya’s story underscores the immense struggle Texas patients with high-risk pregnancies – who have lived under strict abortion bans longer than other US residents – have faced for more than two years. Without clear medical exemptions, the laws have tied the hands of doctors and hospitals who deeply fear the punitive consequences, placing patient care in jeopardy.

    But it’s not just high-risk patients bearing the brunt of Texas abortion policies. Over the last decade, Texas has been a national leader in enacting onerous abortion restrictions, passing the most extreme abortion ban in the US well before the fall of Roe.

    State leaders, who have edged even closer to the far right in recent years, don’t appear to be slowing down. The Texas Republican party is considering a proposal that would threaten doctors who violate the law with the death penalty.

    Lawmakers have also shown interest in targeting out-of-state travel for abortion care, a movement that has already gained traction in Texas…….

    With no choice but to wait for her health to deteriorate, Anaya’s doctor was forced to “build a case” that her life was in danger to persuade the hospital’s termination committee to approve her abortion.

    Every three hours, Anaya underwent tests. Her doctor presented her white blood count and lactic acid levels, and her fetus’s heartbeat, to hospital administration, who said she was not yet sick enough.

    Anaya recalls her doctor practically “begging” the hospital to act. Meanwhile, her fever steadily rose – she was freezing, shaking intensely and constantly vomiting.

    “I was stuck in this horrific limbo, just waiting to get worse and worse,” said Anaya. “I can’t even describe the amount of anxiety I felt. It was a living nightmare.”

    After nearly 24 painful hours, Anaya’s blood tests reached such dangerous levels that hospital administration finally approved the procedure.

    Due to her septic infection, Anaya battled for her health in the hospital for five more days, undergoing two blood transfusions.

    Eventually, she was released and said she spent the next few weeks “crying on the couch” with grief…….

    www.theguardian.com

    ‘They have no options’: Texas court dims hope of timely abortion care for high-risk patients

    Kristen Anaya was told she must be on the cusp of death before doctors would give a life-saving abortion
    www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
     
    Anyone who has lived under the control of an abusive partner or parent knows that the problem is not just what’s prohibited. It’s what you’re unsure is prohibited.

    The prospect of punishment instills fear. Vagueness about what will be punished promotes caution. Just in case, the teenager doesn’t hang out with certain friends. The teacher deletes the controversial book from the curriculum.

    The doctor decides not to perform an abortion when the patient’s health or life is at risk, but, maybe, not imminently so.

    This is what is happening across the 21 states that have banned abortion in all but the direst of circumstances. It’s what happened to Amanda Zurawski, an Austin, Texas, resident who learned at 18 weeks’ gestation that her cervix was prematurely dilated, spelling certain death for her fetus, already named Willow, and posing a grave threat to her own health.

    But because there was still fetal cardiac activity, the doctors sent Zurawski home to get sick enough to qualify for an abortion under Texas’s ban.

    The law permits the procedure only when a patient would otherwise lose “major bodily function” or die. It doesn’t say when that might be. And it makes no allowance for a fatal fetal anomaly.

    Zurawski went into sepsis – full-body infection – and spent three days in the ICU. She survived, but it’s unlikely that her fertility did.

    In Zurawski v Texas (2023), the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) argued on behalf of two doctors and 20 patients that Texas’s statute was so vaguely written that providers could not know whether they were breaking the law – risking penalties as severe as imprisonment – if they did the medically correct thing. The CRR called this failure a violation of the women’s constitutional right to life.……

    www.theguardian.com

    US state abortion ban exemptions aren’t vague by accident. Uncertainty is the point | Judith Levine

    Anti-choice statutes are designed to keep health providers fearful of running afoul of the law. Women suffer for it
    www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
     
    For decades, the forced-birth crowd pooh-poohed pro-choice activists’ warnings that partisan right-wing judges were out to gut Roe v. Wade. “Hysterical!” “Fearmongering!” Then the six-person radical majority shredded nearly 50 years of precedent to deprive women of bodily autonomy.

    The right responded, “Leave it to the states, they’ll be reasonable!” What followed were a series of inhumane, unworkable and dangerous abortion bans that havethreatened women’s lives, created a shortage of doctors and sparked legal chaos and endless litigation.

    Next, Democrats warned that Republicans were after IVF. “Absurd!” Well, Republicans in Congress voted against protection for IVF. Alabama effectively banned it before a backlash forced a reversal.

    By now, you would think Democrats’ warnings that Republicans are coming after reproductive rights, including contraception, would be heeded. But, predictably, Republicans cry foul and deny any thought of snatching away contraception access.

    Ah, but along came felon and former president Donald Trump who let slip he was “looking at” contraception restrictions; then he backpedaled once he realized too much candor was politically disastrous……

    Republicans, authors of a nonstop stream of legislative stunts that have no prayer of passage, hollered it was a “stunt.” It was just about getting out the Democrats’ message, they scoffed.

    Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), one of only two Republians to vote for the bill, in a video replied that if it is a “messaging” bill, that “I want my message to be very clear — a woman has a right to contraception.” Her fellow Republicans’ voting no obviously did not…..


     
    INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Donald Trump on Monday will make a virtual appearance before a Christian group that calls for abortion to be “eradicated entirely,” as the presumptive Republican nominee again takes on an issue that Democrats want to make a focus of this year’s presidential election.

    The former president pre-recorded a video that will be shown at an event hosted by The Danbury Institute, which is meeting in Indianapolis in conjunction with the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention. The Danbury Institute, an association of churches, Christians and organizations, says on its website that it believes “that the greatest atrocity facing our generation today is the practice of abortion” and it “must be ended.”

    “We will not rest until it is eradicated entirely,” the group said.

    Trump has repeatedly taken credit for the overturning of a federally guaranteed right to abortion — having nominated three of the justices who overturned Roe v. Wade — but has resisted supporting a national abortion ban and says he wants to leave the issue to the states.


    Though the Danbury Institute advertised Trump as a virtual speaker at the event, his campaign clarified Monday that Trump had pre-taped a brief video. In a transcript of his remarks provided by the campaign, Trump thanks the audience for their “tremendous devotion to God and Country.”……:



    apnews.com

    Donald Trump tells a group that calls for banning all abortions to stand up for 'innocent life'

    Donald Trump has urged a staunchly anti-abortion Christian group to stand up for “innocent life.” The Republican front-runner has repeatedly taken credit for the overturning of national abortion rights but said he wants to leave the issue to the states.
    apnews.com apnews.com
     
    The right to legal abortion in South Carolina is in a “dire” condition, said the state senator Penry Gustafson, who lost her seat Tuesday to a primary challenger prepared to vote to ban abortion at conception.

    Gustafson is one of five female lawmakers dubbed the “sister senators” who blocked legislation to outlaw abortion from the point of conception in the state. The three Republicans among them – Gustafson, Sandy Senn and Katrina Shealy – each drew male primary challengers who competed for conservative primary voters seeking more restrictive abortion access.

    Senn also lost Tuesday to a primary challenger, state representative Matt Leber, by 31 votes. Results in that race will go through a mandatory recount.


    If two or more senators are replaced by supporters of a complete abortion ban, opponents will no longer have enough votes in the senate to block it. South Carolina currently has a six-week “heartbeat” standard, which the group of female senators have said they believe is too restrictive and unpopular even among South Carolina conservatives.…..

    www.theguardian.com

    Complete abortion ban in South Carolina more likely after primaries

    Two of five ‘sister senators’ who blocked legislation to ban abortion from conception lost to far-right challengers
    www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
     
    1718287873742.png


    www.cnn.com

    Supreme Court maintains access to abortion pill | CNN Politics

    The Supreme Court has issued a decision on whether the US Food and Drug Administration overstepped its authority by expanding access to the abortion pill mifepristone.
    www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
     
    GrandAdmiral said:
    1718287873742.png


    www.cnn.com

    Supreme Court maintains access to abortion pill | CNN Politics

    The Supreme Court has issued a decision on whether the US Food and Drug Administration overstepped its authority by expanding access to the abortion pill mifepristone.
    www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
    Click to expand...
    This is a positive, however I hope this doesn't make abortion rights supporters complacent. The right will keep trying to pursue lawsuits legislation that will make abortions more restrictive and create dangers for women. If it does result in complacency, then it will be a net negative.
     
    Lapaz said:
    This is a positive, however I hope this doesn't make abortion rights supporters complacent. The right will keep trying to pursue lawsuits legislation that will make abortions more restrictive and create dangers for women. If it does result in complacency, then it will be a net negative.
    Click to expand...

    Yeah, the decision is purely on standing - it really doesn’t do anything to ensure access to mifepristone in the substantive law.
     
    superchuck500 said:
    Yeah, the decision is purely on standing - it really doesn’t do anything to ensure access to mifepristone in the substantive law.
    Click to expand...
    Yes, Mystal says this decision was easy, but that they will circle back and try to come at it from a different direction. So not exactly a victory at all.
     
    MT15 said:
    Yes, Mystal says this decision was easy, but that they will circle back and try to come at it from a different direction. So not exactly a victory at all.
    Click to expand...

    That's all true, I'm sure. But at least the anti-abortion groups wasted their time and money because the 5th circuit wouldn't do its job and tried to game the system for them. Now they have to start over from scratch, which takes more time and money.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom