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Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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

 

[SamAndreas]

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/

I'm one of those 57% who don't think the leaked opinion necessarily means Row v Wade will be overturned.

I will wait and see. It's not that there is any action I could take in the mean time that would make a difference.

What I expect is that the time limit to have an abortion upon demand will be reduced a few weeks down to the beginning of what is called "the quickening." That will make our abortion law about the same as it is for most of the rest of the world now.

And quite comparable with what was spelled out for it to be in the Old Testament, in Jewish Law thousands of years ago.

 

[bdb13]

I'm one of those 57% who don't think the leaked opinion necessarily means Row v Wade will be overturned.

I will wait and see. It's not that there is any action I could take in the mean time that would make a difference.

What I expect is that the time limit to have an abortion upon demand will be reduced a few weeks down to the beginning of what is called "the quickening." That will make our abortion law about the same as it is for most of the rest of the world now.

And quite comparable with what was spelled out for it to be in the Old Testament, in Jewish Law thousands of years ago.

Having done a little research here on fetal development and current viability.. I would be in support of reducing the window down to somewhere between 16-20 weeks with exceptions for life of the mother carved out from there.

Not firm on where exactly within that range yet, need to do more research.. but somewhere in that range would probably be the best balance and most fair and appropriate imo.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Good article on religion and abortion
============================
Today across the country, many clergy, people of faith, and spiritual people are advocating for reproductive freedom and abortion access.

The Pew Research Center reported this year that a majority of people in the U.S. support abortion rights, and that outside of conservative white evangelicals, a majority of religious people believe abortion should be legal.

Even in the years before Roe v. Wade was decided, many clergy have supported abortions because it was the morally right thing to do.

Throughout the 1960s and '70s, an underground network of Jewish and Christian leaders called the Clergy Consultation Service worked together to support people who needed abortions that were not legal at the time and there is talk of reactivating that network if restrictive laws that criminalize reproductive health care are put in place again.

Clergy will not let paternalistic and discriminatory laws prevent people from getting needed abortion care. Some have made the false argument that unwanted pregnancies should simply be carried to term with adoption as the goal. But adoption is an alternative to raising a child, not an alternative to pregnancy.

Pregnancy is incredibly difficult and has so little formal support from society — and no one should have to go through it without choosing it.

Part of the reason anti-choice advocates have been working to undo Roe v. Wade and force people to carry pregnancies is the personhood argument — the idea that a fetus should have the same rights as any of us.

While some believe that life begins at conception, it’s not a universally shared belief among people of faith and definitely not a shared analysis by medical professionals and scientists.

Even holy scripture emphasizes breath in our lungs as God’s gift of life, not the fertilization of an embryo. Life does not begin at conception.

When I had a miscarriage in the first trimester of a pregnancy, I wasn't grieving the death of a person — I was grieving the loss of potential of a very wanted human life.

People are entitled to their own feelings when a pregnancy ends, but they are not entitled to their own facts. If this were really about the lives of children, we would have free universal health care for pregnancy and childbirth, paid family leave, financial support for childcare, and policies that provide for children born into any circumstance.

The lack of conservatives advocating for these policies demonstrates that it’s not really about the kids at all — it’s about controlling women’s bodies.

If Christians are going to use scripture to make decisions about reproductive rights, we've got to use all of scripture, not just a few verses out of context that aren’t even about abortion.

The Bible never talks about abortion specifically, but Jesus is consistently validating women's right to make decisions for themselves, calling for change to unjust systems and focusing on economic justice.............

Don’t like abortions? Don’t get one

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

The problem is I doubt the Court is going to go with some kind of brokered time-period. The legal theory is either this a right protected by the Constitution or its not and states are free to regulate/ban it as they see fit. And most of these ultra-conservative/theocratic states are going to go with outright bans.

 

[bdb13]

The problem is I doubt the Court is going to go with some kind of brokered time-period. The legal theory is either this a right protected by the Constitution or its not and states are free to regulate/ban it as they see fit. And most of these ultra-conservative/theocratic states are going to go with outright bans.

No doubt. In all likelihood they have finally collected enough religiously motivated zealots onto the Court here who are willing to operate with intent towards actively bending the country more towards their own personal, Christianity-based ideologies.

 

[superchuck500]

The problem is I doubt the Court is going to go with some kind of brokered time-period. The legal theory is either this a right protected by the Constitution or its not and states are free to regulate/ban it as they see fit. And most of these ultra-conservative/theocratic states are going to go with outright bans.

Yes. But these days more than half of abortions are done by a pill - that can be acquired easily, even through the mail.

I think we can expect these states to shut down any interstate telemedicine in their states, and make it illegal to receive an abortion pill in the mail in the state. But of course a person could always just leave the state to go receive and take the pill - it isn’t always an out of state medical procedure.

This will be another wrinkle in the issue of states trying to criminalize conduct by their residents that occurs out of state and is fully legal where it occurs.

 

[MT15]

Having done a little research here on fetal development and current viability.. I would be in support of reducing the window down to somewhere between 16-20 weeks with exceptions for life of the mother carved out from there.

Not firm on where exactly within that range yet, need to do more research.. but somewhere in that range would probably be the best balance and most fair and appropriate imo.

What would you do with the parents who discover at about 28 weeks that the fetus has one of a number of fatal conditions or deformities? This is a really common time for these abnormalities to be discovered. The story I posted earlier was one of these, the fetus if carried to term would have never been able to swallow and would have died a painful death within hours. The couple was horrified but had the option to terminate the pregnancy at that time rather than drag everything out at more risk to the mother and more pain for the fetus. It’s a heartbreaking occurrence that happens regularly. All 3rd trimester abortions fit this pattern. Imagine having to go on with the pregnancy knowing there won’t actually be a baby, having to explain it all the time to everyone. The emotional pain just going on endlessly for an additional 12 weeks or so and then watching your baby suffer and die?

There are a whole group of abnormalities that can be detected before birth, in this time frame. It’s not exceedingly rare, but even if it was I would want that woman, that couple to have a choice in the matter.

 

[bdb13]

What would you do with the parents who discover at about 28 weeks that the fetus has one of a number of fatal conditions or deformities? This is a really common time for these abnormalities to be discovered. The story I posted earlier was one of these, the fetus if carried to term would have never been able to swallow and would have died a painful death within hours. The couple was horrified but had the option to terminate the pregnancy at that time rather than drag everything out at more risk to the mother and more pain for the fetus. It’s a heartbreaking occurrence that happens regularly. All 3rd trimester abortions fit this pattern. Imagine having to go on with the pregnancy knowing there won’t actually be a baby, having to explain it all the time to everyone. The emotional pain just going on endlessly for an additional 12 weeks or so and then watching your baby suffer and die?

There are a whole group of abnormalities that can be detected before birth, in this time frame. It’s not exceedingly rare, but even if it was I would want that woman, that couple to have a choice in the matter.

I personally would fully support carving out exceptions for situations like that as well.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Yes. But these days more than half of abortions are done by a pill - that can be acquired easily, even through the mail.

I think we can expect these states to shut down any interstate telemedicine in their states, and make it illegal to receive an abortion pill in the mail in the state. But of course a person could always just leave the state to go receive and take the pill - it isn’t always an out of state medical procedure.

This will be another wrinkle in the issue of states trying to criminalize conduct by their residents that occurs out of state and is fully legal where it occurs.

Can states even ban things like receiving abortion medication through the mail? That seems like it would fall under interstate commerce which is a specifically enumerated power.

 

[bdb13]

Can states even ban things like receiving abortion medication through the mail? That seems like it would fall under interstate commerce which is a specifically enumerated power.

I'd imagine it would be illegal to receive/possess in some similar way to how marijuana is illegal to receive/possess in Alabama even if it's mailed from Colorado.

 

[FullMonte]

I'd imagine it would be illegal to receive/possess in some similar way to how marijuana is illegal to receive/possess in Alabama even if it's mailed from Colorado.

I think the issue there would be that marijuana is still a federally illegal substance, so there is a basis for making it illegal in a state that hasn't expressly legalized it. I can't see the same holding true for a substance that is not federally illegal.

 

[bdb13]

I think the issue there would be that marijuana is still a federally illegal substance, so there is a basis for making it illegal in a state that hasn't expressly legalized it. I can't see the same holding true for a substance that is not federally illegal.

Fair enough. I'll try again.

So @superchuck500 can correct me if I'm wrong but if Roe v Wade is overturned I don't really see any reason why a state couldn't make possession of the "abortion pill" illegal within said state, even if it was a 'lawfully' obtained prescription through a differing state. Obviously there would be lawsuits but I'm pretty sure it would stand. If they deem abortion illegal I think they're going to be within their right to then ban possession of abortion causing drugs.

I don't think they'll be able to prosecute individuals who cross state lines to receive abortions... But that's really the first time I've thought about that one and that is some pretty dark shirt if/when they start in with that.

 

[superchuck500]

Can states even ban things like receiving abortion medication through the mail? That seems like it would fall under interstate commerce which is a specifically enumerated power.

Sure, in various ways. They can refuse to license telemedicine that deals with prenatal health, they can make it a crime to receive abortion drugs in the state, they make it a crime to possess abortion drugs in the state, and they can make it a crime to take abortion drugs in the state.

Weed is illegal in my state. I can’t legally order and receive weed from a shop in Colorado.

 

[superchuck500]

Fair enough. I'll try again.

So @superchuck500 can correct me if I'm wrong but if Roe v Wade is overturned I don't really see any reason why a state couldn't make possession of the "abortion bill" illegal within said state, even if it was a 'lawfully' obtained prescription through a differing state. Obviously there would be lawsuits but I'm pretty sure it would stand. If they deem abortion illegal I think they're going to be within their right to then ban possession of abortion causing drugs.

I don't think they'll be able to prosecute individuals who cross state lines to receive abortions... But that's really the first time I've thought about that one and that is some pretty dark shirt if/when they start in with that.

That’s what I was getting at in my earlier post - no, the state doesn’t have jurisdiction to make conduct that occurs in another state illegal. And making it a crime to go from one state to another for a purpose that’s legal in the second state seems to violate free movement and the privileges and immunities clause - but that doesn’t mean they won’t try it.

 

[superchuck500]

I think the issue there would be that marijuana is still a federally illegal substance, so there is a basis for making it illegal in a state that hasn't expressly legalized it. I can't see the same holding true for a substance that is not federally illegal.

A state can make a substance illegal if it wants - it doesn’t have to be federally illegal first. As long as making it illegal doesn’t violate some other law or constitutional right, it can be illegal at the state or even county/local level.

 

[DaveXA]

What would you do with the parents who discover at about 28 weeks that the fetus has one of a number of fatal conditions or deformities? This is a really common time for these abnormalities to be discovered. The story I posted earlier was one of these, the fetus if carried to term would have never been able to swallow and would have died a painful death within hours. The couple was horrified but had the option to terminate the pregnancy at that time rather than drag everything out at more risk to the mother and more pain for the fetus. It’s a heartbreaking occurrence that happens regularly. All 3rd trimester abortions fit this pattern. Imagine having to go on with the pregnancy knowing there won’t actually be a baby, having to explain it all the time to everyone. The emotional pain just going on endlessly for an additional 12 weeks or so and then watching your baby suffer and die?

There are a whole group of abnormalities that can be detected before birth, in this time frame. It’s not exceedingly rare, but even if it was I would want that woman, that couple to have a choice in the matter.

Well, I happened to be similar to one of those cases where a doctor told my mom that it was likely I'd be born with a deformity and he actually suggested she get an abortion. Being in a Catholic family, she couldn't do it and I was born with a severe hearing loss. It could have been worse, and certainly grateful for her decision. Not everyone can do that though. I do think a woman and her doctor should be able to determine whether a medical condition warrants an abortion. I do hope the Court leaves Roe's precedent as is. We'll see.

 

[DaveXA]

Sure, in various ways. They can refuse to license telemedicine that deals with prenatal health, they can make it a crime to receive abortion drugs in the state, they make it a crime to possess abortion drugs in the state, and they can make it a crime to take abortion drugs in the state.

Weed is illegal in my state. I can’t legally order and receive weed from a shop in Colorado.

Here in Virgina, we can't order alcoholic beverages via mail. Virginia is bass ackwards when is comes to liquor. Meh.

 

[superchuck500]

Here in Virgina, we can't order alcoholic beverages via mail. Virginia is bass ackwards when is comes to liquor. Meh.

Make good shine though.