Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (3 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    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    Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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.
     
    On Thursday, the US supreme court unanimously ruled that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine – a sock-puppet group of fanatically anti-choice doctors and busybodies – lacked standing to sue in the group’s challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone, the drug that is now used in more than 60% of American abortions.

    The court’s decision may seem like the end of this battle. It’s only the beginning.

    The lawsuit in question had originally emerged from Amarillo, Texas, in a federal court that has become a destination for anti-choice litigants because Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee and the sole judge hearing federal civil cases in the district, is a militant anti-abortion activist.

    Kacsmaryk made news when he used to case as a pretext to issue a nationwide injunction revoking FDA approval of the drug.

    The fifth circuit court, a radically rightwing appeals panel which has jurisdiction over Texas and which has repeatedly sought to push the supreme court to new heights of anti-abortion extremism, upheld most of Kacsmaryk’s ruling, but limited the case to challenges that the FDA made in 2016 and 2021 to make mifepristone more easily available.

    The case that reached the supreme court was about whether the drug, which has been found to be safer than Tylenol, could be used between seven and 10 weeks of pregnancy, and – crucially – whether it could be prescribed by telehealth and sent through the mail.


    There was only one problem: the plaintiffs had no legal standing whatsoever. Their merits case was bad enough – they relied on obscure, since-retracted studies to claim that mifepristone was dangerous.

    But their theory of how they were harmed by the drug’s availability – even though they neither took nor prescribed it – was fanciful, heavily contingent and ultimately too far-fetched even for this very enthusiastically anti-choice supreme court.

    Brett Kavanaugh, the Trump-appointed justice best known for being accused of sexual assault and braying that he likes beer, authored the opinion that maintained the status quo with regard to the drug’s availability. Mifepristone is still banned in states with abortion bans. But it has not been made more difficult to get in states without them.

    There’s a reason why anti-choice groups are targeting mifepristone. In the more than two decades since the drug was first approved by the FDA, it has revolutionized abortion care.

    Whereas previously, abortions were largely surgical procedures, mifepristone was the first safe and effective method for terminating a pregnancy by ingesting a pill. It allowed abortions to be conducted at a patient’s convenience, and in the privacy of her home.

    A slim majority of abortions in the US were already conducted with mifepristone before Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, but in the years since Roe’s reversal, the use of the pills has risen even further: now, 63% of abortions are performed using mifepristone.

    And because of the FDA’s 2021 ruling allowing the drug to be administered via telemedicine – one of the modes of access that the AHM suit was seeking to end – not all of those mifepristone abortions are happening in states where abortion is legal.…..

     
    CHICAGO (AP) — Reeling from a string of defeats, anti-abortion groups and their Republican allies in state governments are using an array of strategies to counter proposed ballot initiatives intended to protect reproductive rights or prevent voters from having a say in the fall elections.

    The tactics include attempts to get signatures removed from initiative petitions, legislative pushes for competing ballot measures that could confuse voters and monthslong delays caused by lawsuits over ballot initiative language.

    Abortion rights advocates say many of the strategies build off ones tested last year in Ohio, where voters eventually passed a constitutional amendment affirming reproductive rights.……

     
    bolding mine and made me laugh
    =======================

    ARepublican running against Lauren Boebert for the US House was caught in an awkward moment when grilled about paying for a girlfriend’s abortion decades ago.

    Richard Holtorf, a member of the Colorado state House of Representatives running in the Republican primary for the House, revealed earlier this year that he had financed an abortion a girlfriend asked him to pay for when she became pregnant in his early 20s and Holtorf was a college student.

    The tense exchange occurred during an interview with News 9 anchor Thursday evening.

    “If abortion was the best choice for your girlfriend, why try to deny that choice to other women?” anchor Kyle Clark asked.

    The Republican candidate deflected, asking Clark if he had listened to the remarks he had made in January initially describing the situation. Clark countered that Holtorf’s logic in the speech was “scattered” and repeated his question.

    The candidate would not explain why he had voted to take what he himself described as a “right” away from women, who like his girlfriend, may decide it is their best option.

    “I don't [seek to deny that right],” Holtorf claimed.

    Clark shot back: “You have voted to restrict abortion access with legislation.”

    “I have,” Holtorf responded. He added he believes women should choose life at every opportunity, but that there should be “exceptions” to restrictions on the practice.


    “Is one of the exceptions when Richard Holtorf is the father?” asked Clark.

    “No! It’s not about me!” Holtorf responded. “Don’t personalize it and make it about me.”

    Holtorf initially made the revelation of having funded the procedure for his girlfriend during a speech on the state House floor in January..................

     
    Last edited:
    “Is one of the exceptions when Richard Holtorf is the father?” asked Clark.
    spellwizard.gif
     
    bolding mine and made me laugh
    =======================

    ARepublican running against Lauren Boebert for the US House was caught in an awkward moment when grilled about paying for a girlfriend’s abortion decades ago.

    Richard Holtorf, a member of the Colorado state House of Representatives running in the Republican primary for the House, revealed earlier this year that he had financed an abortion a girlfriend asked him to pay for when she became pregnant in his early 20s and Holtorf was a college student.

    The tense exchange occurred during an interview with News 9 anchor Thursday evening.

    “If abortion was the best choice for your girlfriend, why try to deny that choice to other women?” anchor Kyle Clark asked.

    The Republican candidate deflected, asking Clark if he had listened to the remarks he had made in January initially describing the situation. Clark countered that Holtorf’s logic in the speech was “scattered” and repeated his question.

    The candidate would not explain why he had voted to take what he himself described as a “right” away from women, who like his girlfriend, may decide it is their best option.

    “I don't [seek to deny that right],” Holtorf claimed.

    Clark shot back: “You have voted to restrict abortion access with legislation.”

    “I have,” Holtorf responded. He added he believes women should choose life at every opportunity, but that there should be “exceptions” to restrictions on the practice.


    “Is one of the exceptions when Richard Holtorf is the father?” asked Clark.

    “No! It’s not about me!” Holtorf responded. “Don’t personalize it and make it about me.”

    Holtorf initially made the revelation of having funded the procedure for his girlfriend during a speech on the state House floor in January..................


    Here's the video for anyone who wants to see it.

     
    bolding mine and made me laugh
    =======================

    ARepublican running against Lauren Boebert for the US House was caught in an awkward moment when grilled about paying for a girlfriend’s abortion decades ago.

    Richard Holtorf, a member of the Colorado state House of Representatives running in the Republican primary for the House, revealed earlier this year that he had financed an abortion a girlfriend asked him to pay for when she became pregnant in his early 20s and Holtorf was a college student.

    The tense exchange occurred during an interview with News 9 anchor Thursday evening.

    “If abortion was the best choice for your girlfriend, why try to deny that choice to other women?” anchor Kyle Clark asked.

    The Republican candidate deflected, asking Clark if he had listened to the remarks he had made in January initially describing the situation. Clark countered that Holtorf’s logic in the speech was “scattered” and repeated his question.

    The candidate would not explain why he had voted to take what he himself described as a “right” away from women, who like his girlfriend, may decide it is their best option.

    “I don't [seek to deny that right],” Holtorf claimed.

    Clark shot back: “You have voted to restrict abortion access with legislation.”

    “I have,” Holtorf responded. He added he believes women should choose life at every opportunity, but that there should be “exceptions” to restrictions on the practice.

    “Is one of the exceptions when Richard Holtorf is the father?” asked Clark.

    “No! It’s not about me!” Holtorf responded. “Don’t personalize it and make it about me.”

    Holtorf initially made the revelation of having funded the procedure for his girlfriend during a speech on the state House floor in January..................

    THIS is what we need more of from the media.
    Don't let scumbags just say scumbag things and walk away.
     
    Anti-abortion activists in South Dakota have sued over a ballot measure to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, leading the group behind the measure to ask a federal judge to step in and block the activists’ effort.

    Last week, South Dakota’s Life Defense Fund filed a lawsuit accusing Dakotans for Health of fraud, turning in invalid signatures and failing to abide by the state rules that govern signature-gathering for ballot measures. Life Defense Fund has asked a South Dakota circuit court to take the abortion-rights measure off the November ballot.

    In response, Dakotans for Health on Tuesday filed a motion in federal court arguing that Life Defense Fund’s argument is faulty, because it relies on a law that has been blocked by a separate court order.


    Life Defense Fund “are wrong on the facts and wrong on the law,” Rick Weiland, co-founder of Dakotans for Health, said in a statement. “They aren’t even aware that the law they are trying to use to claim our petition should be invalidated was itself invalidated over a year and half ago and no longer exists.”

    “We’re reviewing the complaint, and we will continue to fight to protect mothers and babies from the atrocities of abortion in our state,” Jon Hansen, co-chair of Life Defense Fund and a Republican South Dakota state legislator, said in a statement.……

     
    First, this article is nearly two years old.

    Secondly, do you actually think that was a "big write-up"?

    Third, this is what they said in the article about their expectations:

    "When their all-trimester clinic opens, Horvath and Nuzzo expect to treat perhaps 10 people each week.

    It could be someone whose fetus has serious anomalies, which are often only discovered later in pregnancy.

    It could be a patient whose continued pregnancy threatens their health.

    It could be someone who didn't discover they were pregnant until after the first trimester."

    Please tell me where it says they expect to perform late-stage abortions on healthy fetuses.
    So it only matters if it is an assembly line type set up? What is the number of late term abortions that has to be preformed before we can discuss it?
     
    So it only matters if it is an assembly line type set up? What is the number of late term abortions that has to be preformed before we can discuss it?
    When they're done on HEALTHY WOMEN with HEALTHY FETUSES, ya pitiful git.
    You know why we won't be discussing that?
    Because it doesn't freakin' happen.
     
    So it only matters if it is an assembly line type set up? What is the number of late term abortions that has to be preformed before we can discuss it?

    Can you show me some examples of abortions performed on healthy, viable fetuses able to survive outside the womb at time of abortion?
     
    Can you show me some examples of abortions performed on healthy, viable fetuses able to survive outside the womb at time of abortion?
    I would support prosecuting any such abortion, but I don't think there is proof that any have ever happened, because they would have definitely be prosecuted and they would be all over the news.
     
    The act authorizing Arkansas’ Monument to the Unborn, passed last year, explains that “from 1973 until 2022, Arkansas was prevented from protecting the life of unborn children” by Supreme Court decisions such as Roe v. Wade.

    We all know what happened in 2022. On June 24, in Dobbs v. Jackson, the conservative majority removed federal protection for abortion that had stood for almost 50 years.

    “As of today,” wrote Justice Stephen G. Breyer, dissenting along with Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, “this Court holds, a State can always force a woman to give birth, prohibiting even the earliest abortions. A State can thus transform what, when freely undertaken, is a wonder into what, when forced, may be a nightmare.”

    The Arkansas birthrate has gone up an estimated 1.4 percent since the state began forcing its residents to carry pregnancies to term. That means about 500 additional births a year. In all states with total bans, including Arkansas and 13 others, the birthrate has increased an average of 2.3 percent. In Texas, where geography makes it especially difficult to travel out of state for an abortion, the rate increased by 5.1 percent. All told, early estimates indicate that the end of Roe accounts for 32,000 annual additional births.

    Buried under that approximate number of compulsory births lies another number: the lives that Dobbs has ended.

    We need a monument to them.

    Consider, for a moment, the people who have died in the past two years from complications of pregnancies they wanted to end but couldn’t.

    When a state forces people to carry pregnancies to term — at least 14 times more likely to result in death than an abortion — it forces them to risk their lives. Some inevitably fall — have fallen — on the wrong side of the odds. Those lives have been lost to Dobbs.

    In fact, abortion bans make pregnancy even more dangerous than it already was. In abortion-ban states, patients with ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages and excessive hemorrhaging — conditions that call for abortion care — can’t be treated until fetal heartbeats disappear or patients are on the brink of death. One Texas study found those delays nearly doubled the serious complications patients suffered.

    Surely some patients died while doctors had to wait or wonder whether they were sick enough to treat. Although every state abortion ban includes an exception to save the life of the pregnant person, few exceptions are actually granted.

    And then there are desperate people in abortion-ban states who have tried to end their pregnancies by unsafe means. We know that unsafe abortions can kill. Since these decisions are shrouded in secrecy, stigma and potential legal jeopardy, we might never know how many.

    Still, those losses are the easier ones to count. The true cost of Dobbs is far greater. The people for whom carrying an unwanted pregnancy exacerbates the heart disease or depression that ultimately kills them. The people trapped in lethal abusive relationships because they are forced to bear their abusers’ children. The babies with fatal birth defects who are consigned to brief lives of pain and suffering.

    We don’t know these numbers. We won’t know these numbers.

    And we will never know how many lives Dobbs altered, stunted, constrained and burdened. How many educations it deferred or denied, how many careers it derailed, how many families it broke. Every person who is forced to give birth is a person whose life has been unwillingly, irrevocably changed.

    Losing the right to end a pregnancy affects not just pregnant people, though; it affects everyone who could get pregnant................

     
    Last edited:

    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!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom