Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (4 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Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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.

 

[DaveXA]

Make good shine though.

Tell me more. Lol. I've never tried it.

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[DaveXA]

But of course, abortion isn't a good comparison with bacon. It's a false equivalency imo. This example is a good illustration though.

 

[Taurus]

But of course, abortion isn't a good comparison with bacon. It's a false equivalency imo. This example is a good illustration though.

I think it's an excellent comparison.

Does the Constitution specifically enumerate your right to eat whatever the heck you want? No, it doesn't. This is because jackasses like Rick Santorum who say there's no right to privacy in the Constitution have it intentionally backwards. The Constitution doesn't grant any rights. You already have them. What it does is single out a few for specific protection.

A woman who owns her body has the inalienable right to refuse consent to anything that wants to live inside it. She can do this at any time, for any reason or none. No justification required. Because it's her body.

There is a point where medical ethics might come into play. Are you performing an abortion or intentionally screwing up a delivery? If it's the latter, as a doctor, you're compelled to do your best to deliver a baby that's destined to be put up for adoption. This doesn't change her right to say "I'm done letting this thing live inside me. Evict it."

 

[DaveXA]

I think it's an excellent comparison.

Does the Constitution specifically enumerate your right to eat whatever the heck you want? No, it doesn't. This is because jackasses like Rick Santorum who say there's no right to privacy in the Constitution have it intentionally backwards. The Constitution doesn't grant any rights. You already have them. What it does is single out a few for specific protection.

A woman who owns her body has the inalienable right to refuse consent to anything that wants to live inside it. She can do this at any time, for any reason or none. No justification required. Because it's her body.

There is a point where medical ethics might come into play. Are you performing an abortion or intentionally screwing up a delivery? If it's the latter, as a doctor, you're compelled to do your best to deliver a baby that's destined to be put up for adoption. This doesn't change her right to say "I'm done letting this thing live inside me. Evict it."

Well, I'd argue there are situational ethics involved. And I do think at some point, a fetus becomes a viable living being that can survive if induced. I don't pretend to know when that is, but short of the life of the mother or baby, I have a hard time agreeing that abortion should be allowed beyond that point of viability. Prior to that I'd leave it to the mother and her doctor.

 

[Taurus]

Well, I'd argue there are situational ethics involved. And I do think at some point, a fetus becomes a viable living being that can survive if induced. I don't pretend to know when that is, but short of the life of the mother or baby, I have a hard time agreeing that abortion should be allowed beyond that point of viability. Prior to that I'd leave it to the mother and her doctor.

If a trained medical professional concludes that what he/she is doing is a delivery, they deliver. It's a line best delineated by a doctor, not a judge nor a Senator and for the love of Pete, not a state legislator.

 

[DaveXA]

If a trained medical professional concludes that what he/she is doing is a delivery, they deliver. It's a line best delineated by a doctor, not a judge nor a Senator and for the love of Pete, not a state legislator.

Agreed.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Found this pretty insightful and summarizes most of my thoughts on where America is headed:



A snippet:

Since the draft Dobbs opinion was leaked, Governor Murphy of New Jersey has gone further, announcing that “New Jersey will not cooperate with any out of state investigation into our health care providers that seeks to punish anyone – patient, provider, counselor, friend, or Uber driver – for providing abortion care.”

But there are some serious problems with how this will play out in our federal court system in light of other provisions in our Constitution– issues that legal scholars are already considering at length.

For example, under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, one state is obligated to give full faith and credit to the legislation and court rulings and determinations of another state. This is how, for instance, if you are married in Connecticut, your marriage is still valid if you move to Arizona.

But when one state defies another state’s rulings and laws, justifiable as that defiance may be, a federal court could rule that that defiance violates the Constitution.

So what happens when, hypothetically, a federal court tells New Jersey that its refusal to extradite a doctor who performed an abortion on a Texas resident who traveled to New Jersey is unconstitutional, and that New Jersey must extradite the doctor and comply?

What happens if New Jersey refuses?

At this point, America justifiably cracks.

Why? Because if conservative judges determine that the document that binds us requires states fighting to protect the human rights of its own citizens to comply and violate those rights, and that state defies that judicial ruling (as it should), then the Constitution becomes effectively meaningless.

The union will no longer be bound by a common set of governing principles, and the nation will effectively be a nation no more.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I think it's an excellent comparison.

Does the Constitution specifically enumerate your right to eat whatever the heck you want? No, it doesn't. This is because jackasses like Rick Santorum who say there's no right to privacy in the Constitution have it intentionally backwards. The Constitution doesn't grant any rights. You already have them. What it does is single out a few for specific protection.

A woman who owns her body has the inalienable right to refuse consent to anything that wants to live inside it. She can do this at any time, for any reason or none. No justification required. Because it's her body.

There is a point where medical ethics might come into play. Are you performing an abortion or intentionally screwing up a delivery? If it's the latter, as a doctor, you're compelled to do your best to deliver a baby that's destined to be put up for adoption. This doesn't change her right to say "I'm done letting this thing live inside me. Evict it."

Some great irony in that while Louisiana is doing its best to criminalize abortion, they are also criminalizing any attempt by private employers to mandate vaccinations based on... of course... bodily autonomy.

 

[MT15]

Some great irony in that while Louisiana is doing its best to criminalize abortion, they are also criminalizing any attempt by private employers to mandate vaccinations based on... of course... bodily autonomy.

That’s because men don’t get pregnant, with the obligatory trans exceptions. They know taking away a woman’s right to bodily autonomy will never affect them, and their daughters and/or mistresses will always have access to safe abortions. Always. No matter what.

 

[DaveXA]

That’s because men don’t get pregnant, with the obligatory trans exceptions. They know taking away a woman’s right to bodily autonomy will never affect them, and their daughters and/or mistresses will always have access to safe abortions. Always. No matter what.

With all due respect, bodily autonomy has limits. There are things we can't or shouldn't do to our bodies. And there are things that shouldn't be done at some point during pregnancy. There are consequences. If you smoke, drink or do drugs while pregnant, you likely would end up harming the baby who can be born addicted to some of those things, or suffer defects. Now, I can't tell a woman what she should or shouldn't do, but whatever any of us do, we have to live with the consequences.

 

[bdb13]

If a trained medical professional concludes that what he/she is doing is a delivery, they deliver. It's a line best delineated by a doctor, not a judge nor a Senator and for the love of Pete, not a state legislator.

Just trying to understand.. are you saying there should be no limitations and that if, let's say, a perfectly healthy woman is eight months pregnant with a perfectly healthy fetus.. that an abortion should be an option available to her assuming she can find a doctor willing to perform it?

 

[MT15]

With all due respect, bodily autonomy has limits. There are things we can't or shouldn't do to our bodies. And there are things that shouldn't be done at some point during pregnancy. There are consequences. If you smoke, drink or do drugs while pregnant, you likely would end up harming the baby who can be born addicted to some of those things, or suffer defects. Now, I can't tell a woman what she should or shouldn't do, but whatever any of us do, we have to live with the consequences.

Can you think of another situation similar to the abortion issue that applies to a man’s body? Something that drastically affects a person’s health? Something that takes 40 weeks to come to an end? Something that could be deadly that men’s bodies are forced by law to endure?

 

[bdb13]

Can you think of another situation similar to the abortion issue that applies to a man’s body? Something that drastically affects a person’s health? Something that takes 40 weeks to come to an end? Something that could be deadly that men’s bodies are forced by law to endure?

If we were pushing babies out of our dicks I'm pretty sure things would be different.

Edit: thought that'd be censored but we're here now LOL

 

[Saintamaniac]

There is a point where medical ethics might come into play. Are you performing an abortion or intentionally screwing up a delivery? If it's the latter, as a doctor, you're compelled to do your best to deliver a baby that's destined to be put up for adoption. This doesn't change her right to say "I'm done letting this thing live inside me. Evict it."

States may pass laws prohibiting abortion but those laws (currently) don't limit a woman's right to have labor induced at the earliest moment of viability. If the child can survive outside the womb in an incubator, then a woman should have the right to give it up for adoption at that point. Otherwise, states will have to pass laws specifically forcing women to carry a baby for a specific time.

If giving up babies for adoption is a woman's only recourse then I would hope that they do so at the earliest moment. Hospital costs would cripple state economies let alone the cost of having to house all the un-wanted children. It would be a situation created by the religious right and it would shine a glaring light on how much they really don't care about children after they are born.

Republicans are the kings and queens of unintended consequences for their actions. When 70% of state budgets start being allocated to state child care and hospital costs associated with that child care, republicans will began to reconsider their decisions on controlling women's bodies...that or they will just pass laws making giving up a baby for adoption illegal.

 

[DaveXA]

Can you think of another situation similar to the abortion issue that applies to a man’s body? Something that drastically affects a person’s health? Something that takes 40 weeks to come to an end? Something that could be deadly that men’s bodies are forced by law to endure?

No, it's unique to women for sure. I'm sensitive to that. But at the same time, and at least my wife has told me as much, that for her, she felt a sense of responsibility for taking care of herself, not just for herself, but also out of love and health for our children. For her, it started during her pregnancy. And none of this happens in a vacuum. Every woman will have to make their own decisions, hopefully in consultation with her doctor.

In our case, with all four of our kids, I was with her during her OB/GYN visits and she wanted me to be involved with the process. I'm glad she asked me to participate fully and was present for the birth of all of my kids. I consider myself fortunate that we didn't have any major complications. Many mothers have faced complications and they should have to ability to make whatever decision in consultation with her doctor.

 

[Taurus]

Just trying to understand.. are you saying there should be no limitations and that if, let's say, a perfectly healthy woman is eight months pregnant with a perfectly healthy fetus.. that an abortion should be an option available to her assuming she can find a doctor willing to perform it?

Yes.
Though at such a time, what the doctor is ethically constrained to do is called a 'delivery', because the fetus is removed alive and put into an incubator and given every chance to survive.
Doing so, however, is expensive. And we all know how Republicans are about spending money to keep things alive as opposed to blowing them up.

 

[bdb13]

Yes.
Though at such a time, what the doctor is ethically constrained to do is called a 'delivery', because the fetus is removed alive and put into an incubator and given every chance to survive.
Doing so, however, is expensive. And we all know how Republicans are about spending money to keep things alive as opposed to blowing them up.

I pretty strongly disagree and would say at that point she needs to give birth/have physician induce at appropriate time or whatever and give it up for adoption or whatever she chooses to do.

Pardon my ignorance on this but what is it that ethically constrains the doctor to "deliver" the fetus there as opposed to directly aborting it? Are they constrained to doing that after a certain number of weeks?