Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (2 Viewers)

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Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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

 

[MT15]

fork those guys saying it won’t affect anything. It’s going to affect a whole lot.

 

[wardorican]

This is the true story of a 3rd trimester abortion. You all need to read this. This woman would have died had she not been able to get her abortion, had she been made to take her abnormal pregnancy to term. There wasn’t any indication that something was wrong until 28 weeks, and even then, they didn’t know how bad it was until they did the abortion. But this is what the Rs, the evangelicals, and the Catholics are doing, they are injecting themselves into her medical care. They are sentencing someone like her to death. The Boston clinic where she started says they refer someone like her to the clinic where she ended up 2x every month, so you cannot say this situation is extremely rare. I feel sick to my stomach knowing that people are so contemptuous of women’s lives that they want to punish women like her. They want to deny her the very best care that modern medicine can provide, knowing that it may well kill these women. These women who have families, who have other children. I cannot believe we have such cruelty in supposedly Christian people.

Rivers of Babylon: The Story of a Third-Trimester Abortion - The Rumpus

She said something to me, then, that has been a great comfort. “You had a choice,” she said, “but you did not have free will.” A choice that was no choice at all.

therumpus.net

I can't read the article from here, but the Catholic Church has always had an exception (loosely stated) to protect the life of the mother. In a perfect world, you'd try to save both, but it's acceptable to save the mother.

The argument in this letter is to actually not even consider it an abortion.

Exception: To Save the Life of the Mother | EWTN

EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.

www.ewtn.com

 

[Saintamaniac]

First of all, this is going to affect a lot of people which is going to have all kinds of ripple effects

Second of all, this seems to illustrate the GOP point of view of "why care about anything that doesn't affect you personally?"

The same can be said about leaving Roe vs Wade in place. Exactly what about the life of anyone who isn't getting an abortion changes if Roe vs Wade is left in place?

A Mississippi resident - If Roe v Wade is left in place, people seeking abortions can still get them. People not seeking abortions are unimpacted. If Roe v Wade is overturned, people seeking abortions will no longer be able to get a medical procedure that could save their life. People not seeking abortions are unimpacted. No, the senator I'd like to slap in the face with a bat most is simply wrong, lying or both yet again.

This is the same thing with gun legislation. It only impacts people who are trying to get a gun. People not interested in getting guns are completely unimpacted by rules that would require registration of fire arms.

 

[MT15]

I can't read the article from here, but the Catholic Church has always had an exception (loosely stated) to protect the life of the mother. In a perfect world, you'd try to save both, but it's acceptable to save the mother.

The argument in this letter is to actually not even consider it an abortion.

Exception: To Save the Life of the Mother | EWTN

EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.

www.ewtn.com

Doesn’t apply in this case. She couldn’t even get an abortion in MA. Had to go to CO to get a 3rd trimester abortion. The situation that threatened her life wasn’t known until they started the procedure. They then discovered an abnormality in the placenta, that had she waited and delivered the severely affected child who would die painfully at term there’s a good chance she would have been much more severely affected.

All these laws that are being presented do not care about the life of the woman. See my other post where pharmacies in TX are already refusing to fill some prescriptions because they are afraid of being named in a bounty hunter lawsuit. Even when the prescriptions aren’t even for abortion but are meds that are used in abortions.

 

[brandon]

People not interested in getting guns are completely unimpacted by rules that would require registration of fire arms.

Not sure I entirely agree with that.

I don't own any guns, but if tougher gun laws are enacted, I stand to benefit by keeping more guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, thereby reducing my change of being affected by gun violence.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Not sure I entirely agree with that.

I don't own any guns, but if tougher gun laws are enacted, I stand to benefit by keeping more guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, thereby reducing my change of being affected by gun violence.

I should clarify and say that people not interested in owning guns would not be negatively impacted.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I hope so

But My cynical side thinks that nothing the GOP does backfires spectacularly. They are doubling down on everything

22 and 24 will tell the tale

Democrats have long assumed that if Republicans ever managed to overturn Roe v. Wade, they would come to regret it.

This was not an unwarranted assumption.

Poll after poll shows that strong majorities of Americans think abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances and want Roe v. Wade to be left intact.
“By removing the issue from the policy arena,” wrote legal analyst Benjamin Wittes in 2005, “the Supreme Court has prevented abortion rights supporters from winning a debate in which public opinion favors them.”

The dominant metaphor cast Republicans in this scenario as “the dog that caught the car” — at last in possession of the object of their desire, with nothing but grief to come of it.


Yet here we are, and things don’t actually look so bad for Republicans. A draft Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe leaked last week, but a poll taken by CNN after the news broke showed the GOP running seven points ahead of Democrats on the generic ballot, which measures which party voters want to control Congress.

Perhaps voters simply aren’t paying attention, or haven’t had time to grapple with the implications? Well, perhaps — but what about Texas?

Last year, Texas effectively outlawed abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Now, Gov. Greg Abbott (R), who signed the restrictive bill into law, is running well ahead of Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke.

It’s hard to argue that Texas voters are unaware; the law has been hotly debated and has seriously impacted abortion access. But so far, it just doesn’t seem to be moving many votes.

At first blush, this seems positively astonishing, given how central abortion has become to U.S. party politics. Yet it is actually pretty easy to explain in terms of three factors: polarization, power and place…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/11/roe-abortion-democrats-republicans-voting/

 

[DaveXA]

Democrats have long assumed that if Republicans ever managed to overturn Roe v. Wade, they would come to regret it.

This was not an unwarranted assumption.

Poll after poll shows that strong majorities of Americans think abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances and want Roe v. Wade to be left intact.
“By removing the issue from the policy arena,” wrote legal analyst Benjamin Wittes in 2005, “the Supreme Court has prevented abortion rights supporters from winning a debate in which public opinion favors them.”

The dominant metaphor cast Republicans in this scenario as “the dog that caught the car” — at last in possession of the object of their desire, with nothing but grief to come of it.


Yet here we are, and things don’t actually look so bad for Republicans. A draft Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe leaked last week, but a poll taken by CNN after the news broke showed the GOP running seven points ahead of Democrats on the generic ballot, which measures which party voters want to control Congress.

Perhaps voters simply aren’t paying attention, or haven’t had time to grapple with the implications? Well, perhaps — but what about Texas?

Last year, Texas effectively outlawed abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Now, Gov. Greg Abbott (R), who signed the restrictive bill into law, is running well ahead of Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke.

It’s hard to argue that Texas voters are unaware; the law has been hotly debated and has seriously impacted abortion access. But so far, it just doesn’t seem to be moving many votes.

At first blush, this seems positively astonishing, given how central abortion has become to U.S. party politics. Yet it is actually pretty easy to explain in terms of three factors: polarization, power and place…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/11/roe-abortion-democrats-republicans-voting/

Party over country. Party over morals. Party over doing the right thing. Many Republicans have long voted against their own interests because they'd rather screw the Democrats.

As long as they don't nationalize an abortion ban, I think pro-choice Republicans will still vote Republican and just move to a pro-choice state and stay Republican. People are weird.

 

[bird]

It is interesting that we hear some Republican politicians batting around the idea of a federal ban. I thought that the states, the meth labs of democracy, were the proper place. Darn goalposts keep moving.

A part of the problem lies with the concept of rights. I certainly support bodily autonomy. That being said Hannah Arendt wrote about rights in the context of the American Revolution (which wasn’t a true revolution but a separation actually based upon a class struggle) and the French Revolution in her book On Revolution. The founders in the case of the American Revolution were far more concerned with erecting a rigid system that limited the people from having a large impact while allowing wealth to basically do as they pleased. The system “worked” as long as the franchise was limited and the federal legislature didn’t touch slavery. True, most people, imo, were basically engaged in subsistence living. The dawning of the industrial revolution resulted in a laboring class being created as well as movement over time by portions of the populace from rural to urban. This was something, imo, the founders were clearly unprepared for. They were also not prepared for the destruction of slavery, the impact of accelerated technology and the expansion of the franchise although they feared the expansion of the franchise. The inclusion of a large portion of the populace in the political process would inevitably result in the demand by those groups for full participation. As the political economy which is what we are really talking about is defined as who gets what, where, when, how and why it is only natural that full participation must become a question of “rights”. As rights do not exist outside the body politic it naturally becomes the only forum and thus becomes contentious as various groups vie for rights. The establishment of democratic institutions and civic religion rendering those institutions with a quasi-religious sacredness has been crucial to the functioning of the barely fleshed out system first established by the constitution.

Trump and the Republican Party have destroyed that crucial element and we are now suffering what Arendt discusses about the French Revolution. The French Revolution was concerned immediately with rights as opposed to the establishment of the system. Since the body politic through institutions, good or bad, legitimizes rights the lack of a system resulted in a failure of revolution.

While it certainly is important that Roe v Wade not be overturned it is far more critical that we examine the damage done by Republicans in general and Trumpism in particular which has put the system on life support.

This is the real danger. Because a failed system must needs result in chaos or charlatans/strongmen. A third option, if we are lucky, would be pulling back from the precipice but I am unconvinced as to the likelihood of that. We have seen that a significant portion of the Republican Party favors charlatans/strongmen.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Article on the legal can of worms on the horizon
====================

Two pernicious myths about abortion rights have emerged in the wake of the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would overrule Roe v. Wade. Together, they illustrate how intractable the abortion debate is — and how extreme.

The first myth — demonstrably laughable — is that eliminating constitutional protection for abortion rights would remove this contentious issue from courts and leave decisions to the democratic process, where it should have been all along.


The second — far more dangerous — is that abortion opponents would be satisfied with such an outcome, and the consequent national patchwork of access to abortion. They wouldn’t.

Getting rid of Roe is just the start. For those who believe that abortion is the taking of a human life, allowing it to remain legal in wide swaths of the country is intolerable.

Let’s start with the fallacy that, as Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. argued in the leaked draft, overruling Roe would “return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
Alluring as this may sound, it won’t happen.

As Harvard Law School professor Richard Fallon wrote in a 2007 law review article, “The notion that by overruling Roe the Supreme Court could extract itself from controversial assessments of the constitutionality of state antiabortion legislation is not just a fallacy. It is a delusion.”

If anything, overruling Roe would expand court involvement by inviting action in state courts, testing the scope of what is protected under state constitutions. This isn’t imaginary: In Michigan, Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer recently asked her state’s Supreme Court to preemptively address the question……

That’s just the start. Life without Roe introduces uncharted legal questions that law professors David S. Cohen, Greer Donley and Rachel Rebouché describe as “a novel world of complicated, interjurisdictional legal conflicts over abortion,” pitting state against state.


The rise of telemedicine and the availability of abortion-inducing medication — which now accounts for more than half of all abortions — mean that abortion is increasingly untethered from physical clinics and state borders. Do states that prohibit abortion have the power to prevent their citizens from obtaining abortions elsewhere, or to punish them if they do?

What happens if a woman takes abortion medication in a state where that is legal but expels the fetus in a state that prohibits abortion? Could states seek to punish out-of-state doctors who prescribe medication abortions — or, alternatively, shield in-state physicians from being held to account by states where abortion is illegal?

State laws in this area would raise unresolved questions about the constitutional right to travel, the reach of the commerce clause, and the extent of extraterritorial jurisdiction — issues that make deciding what constitutes an “undue burden” on abortion rights simple by comparison.


If the legal questions will be unending, so, too, will be the efforts to end access to abortion, whether through the courts or the legislative process. For all of Alito’s paeans to the democratic process and Republican lawmakers’ efforts to present themselves as “compassionate, consensus builders” seeking only state “flexibility” to adopt “reasonable restrictions,” abortion opponents will not stop until it is outlawed nationwide.

Why should they, if they believe that abortion is tantamount to murder?


Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the antiabortion Susan B. Anthony List, told The Post that she has spoken with 10 potential GOP presidential candidates, most of whom “assured her they would be supportive of a national ban and would be eager to make that policy a centerpiece of a presidential campaign.”……

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/12/alito-draft-opinion-myths/

 

[superchuck500]

 

[DaveXA]

Article on the legal can of worms on the horizon
====================

Two pernicious myths about abortion rights have emerged in the wake of the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would overrule Roe v. Wade. Together, they illustrate how intractable the abortion debate is — and how extreme.

The first myth — demonstrably laughable — is that eliminating constitutional protection for abortion rights would remove this contentious issue from courts and leave decisions to the democratic process, where it should have been all along.


The second — far more dangerous — is that abortion opponents would be satisfied with such an outcome, and the consequent national patchwork of access to abortion. They wouldn’t.

Getting rid of Roe is just the start. For those who believe that abortion is the taking of a human life, allowing it to remain legal in wide swaths of the country is intolerable.

Let’s start with the fallacy that, as Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. argued in the leaked draft, overruling Roe would “return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
Alluring as this may sound, it won’t happen.

As Harvard Law School professor Richard Fallon wrote in a 2007 law review article, “The notion that by overruling Roe the Supreme Court could extract itself from controversial assessments of the constitutionality of state antiabortion legislation is not just a fallacy. It is a delusion.”

If anything, overruling Roe would expand court involvement by inviting action in state courts, testing the scope of what is protected under state constitutions. This isn’t imaginary: In Michigan, Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer recently asked her state’s Supreme Court to preemptively address the question……

That’s just the start. Life without Roe introduces uncharted legal questions that law professors David S. Cohen, Greer Donley and Rachel Rebouché describe as “a novel world of complicated, interjurisdictional legal conflicts over abortion,” pitting state against state.


The rise of telemedicine and the availability of abortion-inducing medication — which now accounts for more than half of all abortions — mean that abortion is increasingly untethered from physical clinics and state borders. Do states that prohibit abortion have the power to prevent their citizens from obtaining abortions elsewhere, or to punish them if they do?

What happens if a woman takes abortion medication in a state where that is legal but expels the fetus in a state that prohibits abortion? Could states seek to punish out-of-state doctors who prescribe medication abortions — or, alternatively, shield in-state physicians from being held to account by states where abortion is illegal?

State laws in this area would raise unresolved questions about the constitutional right to travel, the reach of the commerce clause, and the extent of extraterritorial jurisdiction — issues that make deciding what constitutes an “undue burden” on abortion rights simple by comparison.


If the legal questions will be unending, so, too, will be the efforts to end access to abortion, whether through the courts or the legislative process. For all of Alito’s paeans to the democratic process and Republican lawmakers’ efforts to present themselves as “compassionate, consensus builders” seeking only state “flexibility” to adopt “reasonable restrictions,” abortion opponents will not stop until it is outlawed nationwide.

Why should they, if they believe that abortion is tantamount to murder?


Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the antiabortion Susan B. Anthony List, told The Post that she has spoken with 10 potential GOP presidential candidates, most of whom “assured her they would be supportive of a national ban and would be eager to make that policy a centerpiece of a presidential campaign.”……

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/12/alito-draft-opinion-myths/

The issue isn't going away regardless of how the court decides the current case. The lines of the debate will continue to be tested as it has ever since Roe.

 

[DaveXA]

Lol, that's just painful to read. Smh.

 

[Saintamaniac]

If a woman has a miscarriage, does she get charged with murder? If she doesn't get charged, can she claim the child tax credit the following year on income tax? If fertilized eggs have rights, then they should count for tax purposes. I'm beginning to believe that the current Republican party is a group exercise in the Dunning Kruger effect.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

For context, Barry Ivey is sort of a moderate (at least for Louisiana) Republican while Danny McCormick is a far right loon who authored the Louisiana bill.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Interesting article
==============
The leaked Supreme Court draft opinion on Roe v. Wade has reminded Americans that divisions over abortion are deep, that the issue is far from resolved and that the conflict remains red-hot.

That last part, though, was never a given — and may not even be accurate.

Data show that Americans hold nuanced views about abortion, that they see gray areas and that their attitudes are contingent upon a variety of circumstances, such as how far along a pregnancy is or how risky it is for the mother.

According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, relatively few Americans hold absolutistviews on abortion: Only about 1 in 5 say it should be legal in all cases, and fewer than 1 in 10 say it should be illegal without exception.

So why does our abortion debate feel completely inflamed? Because it has been exploited.
In her 2021 book “High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out,” journalist Amanda Ripley explains what can turn disagreement — inevitable in any group or community — into potentially ruinous “high conflict”: a moment “when conflict clarifies into a good-versus-evil kind of feud, the kind with an us and a them.”

In high conflict, the nuanced middle flees the debate, leaving only the most extreme voices to shout from their two distant poles. The threats feel existential. And the normal rules of engagement — the ones that allow a society to function — cease to apply.

The runaway blaze of high conflict is stoked by what Ripley calls “conflict entrepreneurs”: those who have something to gain from the conflict’s continuing, and who thus help it along rather than seek to tone it down, bundling conflicts together to make them feel worse and more distressing. These people delight in the fight, and in adding fuel to the fire.

When it comes to abortion, there are many such entrepreneurs — whether it’s GOP candidates trying to rally the base by painting their across-the-aisle counterparts as unrepentant baby-killers, or Democrats building their brand by painting a post-Roe world in the galvanizing colors of fear.

Whole lobbies live off abortion as a salient conflict, especially on the right. (That’s partly why the Supreme Court leak felt like such a “dog catches car” moment: If you’ve campaigned, fundraised and organized for decades on the cause of overthrowing Roe, what do you do once it has happened?)

In certain instances, the entrepreneurs are barely interested in abortion at all. Some individuals and organizations are served by any conflict that pits two sides against each other — that makes partisanship and polarization more entrenched, and that drives up emotions of loathing and anger.

Our former president was one: For most of his public life, Donald Trump identified as pro-choice. By the 2016 election season, he was telling lurid tales about how his former allies would “rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day.”…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/13/abortion-roe-polarization-high-conflict/

 

[DaveXA]

Interesting article
==============
The leaked Supreme Court draft opinion on Roe v. Wade has reminded Americans that divisions over abortion are deep, that the issue is far from resolved and that the conflict remains red-hot.

That last part, though, was never a given — and may not even be accurate.

Data show that Americans hold nuanced views about abortion, that they see gray areas and that their attitudes are contingent upon a variety of circumstances, such as how far along a pregnancy is or how risky it is for the mother.

According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, relatively few Americans hold absolutistviews on abortion: Only about 1 in 5 say it should be legal in all cases, and fewer than 1 in 10 say it should be illegal without exception.

So why does our abortion debate feel completely inflamed? Because it has been exploited.
In her 2021 book “High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out,” journalist Amanda Ripley explains what can turn disagreement — inevitable in any group or community — into potentially ruinous “high conflict”: a moment “when conflict clarifies into a good-versus-evil kind of feud, the kind with an us and a them.”

In high conflict, the nuanced middle flees the debate, leaving only the most extreme voices to shout from their two distant poles. The threats feel existential. And the normal rules of engagement — the ones that allow a society to function — cease to apply.

The runaway blaze of high conflict is stoked by what Ripley calls “conflict entrepreneurs”: those who have something to gain from the conflict’s continuing, and who thus help it along rather than seek to tone it down, bundling conflicts together to make them feel worse and more distressing. These people delight in the fight, and in adding fuel to the fire.

When it comes to abortion, there are many such entrepreneurs — whether it’s GOP candidates trying to rally the base by painting their across-the-aisle counterparts as unrepentant baby-killers, or Democrats building their brand by painting a post-Roe world in the galvanizing colors of fear.

Whole lobbies live off abortion as a salient conflict, especially on the right. (That’s partly why the Supreme Court leak felt like such a “dog catches car” moment: If you’ve campaigned, fundraised and organized for decades on the cause of overthrowing Roe, what do you do once it has happened?)

In certain instances, the entrepreneurs are barely interested in abortion at all. Some individuals and organizations are served by any conflict that pits two sides against each other — that makes partisanship and polarization more entrenched, and that drives up emotions of loathing and anger.

Our former president was one: For most of his public life, Donald Trump identified as pro-choice. By the 2016 election season, he was telling lurid tales about how his former allies would “rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day.”…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/13/abortion-roe-polarization-high-conflict/

Lately, I've been of the view that the abortion issue is more of a wedge issue and political football than a truly moral one. It seems to me a way to get people into their camps and marginalize others with those nuanced views. And I don't think people like being boxed in or backed into a corner because they do have those nuanced views. Just feels like nuance is something the respective parties don't have a lot of tolerance for.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Washington’s reaction to the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade has been typically myopic.


Republicans first tried to make people believe that the issue wasn’t the opinion itself but the leak. Now they’re absurdly trying to portray Democrats as supporters of infanticide.

Democrats, in turn, squabbled among themselves before a show vote on a doomed abortion rights bill.

And the news media have reverted to our usual horse-race speculation about how it will affect the midterms.


This small-bore response misses the radical change to society that Justice Samuel Alito and his co-conspirators are poised to ram down the throats of Americans. Their stunning action might well change the course of the midterms — but more importantly, it is upending who we are as a people.

Assuming little changes from the draft, overturning Roe would be a shock to our way of life, the social equivalent of the 9/11 attacks (which shattered our sense of physical security) or the crash of 2008 (which undid our sense of financial security).

As epoch-making decisions go, this is Brown v. Board of Education, but in reverse: taking away an entrenched right Americans have relied upon for half a century. We remember Brown because it changed us forever, not because it altered the 1954 midterms.

It’s impossible to say what will result from the trauma of overturning Roe, but the effects will be far reaching and long lasting. Americans are not prepared for this.

Though people have been aware of the possibility of Roe falling, as recently as last month, just 20 percent thought it very likely or definite that it would be overturned, an Economist-YouGov poll found.

Even now, after Alito’s draft, only 57 percent of voters in a Morning Consult-Politico poll believe it likely Roe will be overturned…….

This shows the folly of Republicans’ attempt to reframe the debate. Roe v. Wade isn’t some little-known term such as “critical race theory” that can be hijacked with disinformation.

Americans understand it as plainly as they understand Social Security, and they aren’t going to be convinced that the 50 years under Roe was a time of rampant killing of viable fetuses.


Yet, as Democrats waged their symbolic effort to codify Roe last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) alleged that they support “abortion on demand through all nine months, until the moment before the baby is born.”

“Just seconds away from delivery,” accused Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R).


“Even beyond birth,” Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.) said.


Americans are not stupid. They know Roe, and they’ll know who the extremists are when, post-Roe, they see states considering or enacting legislation to charge women with homicide for abortions, to ban abortion even for life-threatening ectopic pregnancies, to throw doctors in jail, and to forbid women any relief even if they are raped — calling the rape of a 13-year-old girl an “opportunity” for her…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/13/roe-big-picture-fundamental-attack/