Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (3 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Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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.

 

[superchuck500]

So this is interesting but it seems like a lot of effort, risk, and headache when these organizations could just fund plane tickets to abortion-legal states.

If this ship is going to sit in the Gulf of Mexico, where all of the states are likely to have anti-abortion laws it seems like they could easily criminalize behavior in their ports that relates to facilitating abortion. So then what - does it become like an Underground Railroad except on clandestine boats to get out to the ship? When they could just get on a plane and go to Baltimore?

 

[DaveXA]

So this is interesting but it seems like a lot of effort, risk, and headache when these organizations could just fund plane tickets to abortion-legal states.

If this ship is going to sit in the Gulf of Mexico, where all of the states are likely to have anti-abortion laws it seems like they could easily criminalize behavior in their ports that relates to facilitating abortion. So then what - does it become like an Underground Railroad except on clandestine boats to get out to the ship? When they could just get on a plane and go to Baltimore?

Yeah, there has to be a better way. Having a medical procedure done at sea doesn't sound like a good idea. And like Chuck said, simply fund travel to another state.

 

[Optimus Prime]

DALLAS — Standing next to a display of military-grade weapons, I wondered aloud to the dealers at the gun-show booth if more women should get guns in Texas to protect themselves now that they will be forced to carry a pregnancy to term even in cases of rape.


“You can’t rape a .38,” one of the gun dealers said, smiling.


The line was equal parts laughably cheesy and tragically grim. As we spoke, a little boy walked by waving around a toy machine gun, pretending to spray everyone in the vicinity with imaginary bullets.

A few booths over, a female attendant wore a black-and-red “All Lives Splatter” T-shirt.

The Fort Worth Gun Show, at the Amon Carter Exhibit Hall, is one of the oldest gun shows in gun-loving North Texas. I attended the two-day event this month to see what it would be like on the heels of both the Uvalde school massacre and the overturning of Roe v. Wade. I wanted to see how the Texas gun community would make sense of the two events……

Does the end of one constitutional right mean women should rush to embrace another that our Supreme Court is rushing to expand?

Even before the fall of Roe it was a common pitch of gun enthusiasts: Women are safer when they own a gun. But the reality is, women who have guns are more likely to have them used against them.

And the biggest danger is not a stranger slipping through a window or lurking in a parking garage, but a man already in their life…..

The study, conducted by Tulane University researchers, revealed that the “pregnancy-associated homicide” rate in 2018 and 2019 was 3.62 per 100,000 women — 16 percent higher than homicides of women who are not pregnant or haven’t recently given birth.

Homicide beat hemorrhage and pregnancy-related hypertension as the top single cause of death. A majority of the slain women were killed with guns, and two-thirds were killed in their homes, suggesting partners were involved, according to the authors. The rates were highest among Black women and younger women.

In Texas, the news here is a sad reflection of this. In October, 25-year-old Cavanna Smith had told her boyfriend that she was pregnant, and sent him a card with a picture of the ultrasound; she was later found dead, shot in the head.

The boyfriend has been charged with her murder. In April, 20-year-old Dontia Clark was found shot to death in her Houston apartment a day after learning she was eight weeks pregnant. According to reports, there were no signs of forced entry.


Much has been said and written about women who seek abortions for medical threats such as ectopic pregnancies.

But what of women who seek to end their pregnancies to protect themselves from violence at the hands of the men in their lives? Or who don’t want to bring a child into the world with a potential abuser?

In Texas, women can no longer choose a safe abortion as a means of self-defense. What are we going to do, tell them to get a .22?…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/11/texas-gun-show-aborttion-right-arming-women/

 

[superchuck500]

Death cult.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

I think she has a pretty good argument based on Texas law. But you have to look at the precise terminology in each state to figure these things out.

First of all, Dobbs doesn't say that fetus are people under the law - Dobbs says that the constitutional basis upon which Roe and Casey overturned state abortion laws is misplaced . . . and that there actually is no constitutional basis to overturn state abortion laws. Ergo, state abortion laws are now enforceable.

Texas's abortion law basically protects a fetus from abortion from the time of the first detectable heartbeat. Throughout the law it refers to "unborn child" as the thing that is being protected. But also if you look to Texas's general definitions section in its penal code, it defines an "Individual" as "a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." I think you can presume "individual" and "person" are synonymous.

I can't find and don't feel like looking any further for the actual statute or regulation that defines how HOV lanes work in Texas, but the state's DOT page says HOV use is for passenger vehicles "occupied by two or more people."

Under Texas law, a pregnant woman appears to be two people. But that's really based on how Texas defines "Individual" - and I'm not sure if that was even related to Dobbs or the "trigger" abortion law at all. Of course, there may be some rule or definition somewhere that precludes this argument.

So if I'm reading correctly (and I don't always), Dobbs only role is allowing the trigger law to kick in. It's actually a moot point to what the pregnant woman is arguing.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

All these personhood from conception people are doing is opening a huge can of worms that will affect lots of people’s lives in unforeseen ways. For example, without IVF I wouldn’t have any grandchildren right now - are they sure they want to outlaw IVF? Because giving a fertilized egg all the rights of a full human being means no more IVF. It also makes every miscarriage a potential murder which can be litigated I would think. Even if prosecutors decide not to prosecute what would prevent wrongful death suits from in-laws or boyfriends or ex-husbands?

CNN had an interesting story that went even further. Woman went for an IVF. Of course, doctors typically insert more than one embryo to see which one takes hold, if any. In this lady's case all four embryos took hold. But the doctor said if she brought all four to term, she likely wouldn't survive. The state she lived in had a trigger law with no exceptions, even for the life of the mother. She likely would've died had Dobbs been decided sooner.

 

[MT15]

They don’t generally insert that many embryos where my daughter went, the max is two. But they do rate the embryos, and sometimes genetically test them and discard the ones they think aren’t viable. Her last pregnancy they only implanted one, but it split and that’s how she had twins. However, her twin pregnancy was just so much more physically difficult, she ended up with pre-eclampsia that didn’t resolve after birth. She had to go back into the hospital with dangerous side effects one week after birth, and spent 4 days on the cardiac ward.

 

[superchuck500]

So if I'm reading correctly (and I don't always), Dobbs only role is allowing the trigger law to kick in. It's actually a moot point to what the pregnant woman is arguing.

From the article it seems like her primary point is that the baby is a person. Based on how I read the Texas statutes a person includes unborn babies so she appears to be right. But there are often different definitions for different applications so I can’t say 100 for sure but that’s how it looks after a quick search.

I don’t know when that definition was added, if it was due to the trigger law that make it even more timely but it could be older, some states passed fetal protections in the criminal codes (but for abortion) to do things like prosecute people for harming a fetus.

 

[MT15]

This will help - there’s probably no hospital willing to give up Medicare patients.

 

[superchuck500]

This will help - there’s probably no hospital willing to give up Medicare patients.

There has been a lot of criticism of the White House response taking a few weeks but I think this administration wants to get these things right legally to reduce chance of being overturned. Of course, we knew this ruling was coming so it's fair criticism.

But something like this looks very interesting to me - I have seen commentary about that it appears on solid ground that "emergency treatment" is an area that the federal government can regulate through Medicare. If that's true, and I think we can presume it is given how deliberate they were with it, this is a meaningful move.

It still doesn't get to main issue, hopefully it helps some women truly in danger from being put at risk with these ridiculous laws.

 

[DaveXA]

This will help - there’s probably no hospital willing to give up Medicare patients.

I think this at least give some people alternatives. But you know the states will try to find some way to shut that down too.

 

[superchuck500]

I think this at least give some people alternatives. But you know the states will try to find some way to shut that down too.

Perhaps but government funding is a big stick.

We all saw how the federal government used highway funds to bring about a change in the legal drinking age.

 

[DaveXA]

Perhaps but government funding is a big stick.

We all saw how the federal government used highway funds to bring about a change in the legal drinking age.

True, I was thinking more legal than financial, but yeah, federal funding carries a lot of weight

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Medicare is one thing... Medicaid patients are the most needy, however.

 

[DaveXA]

Medicare is one thing... Medicaid patients are the most needy, however.

Definitely.

 

[MT15]

Medicare is one thing... Medicaid patients are the most needy, however.

The policy won’t harm patients, it will withhold Medicare funding from hospitals who refuse to perform medically necessary abortions when the life of the woman is in question. No hospital can afford to give up Medicare reimbursement.

 

[superchuck500]

Medicare is one thing... Medicaid patients are the most needy, however.

I think both Medicare and Medicaid offer tools of significant financial leverage. The federal portion of Medicaid is about 75% on average. In states like Mississippi and West Virginia, it's over 80%.

Federal and State Share of Medicaid Spending | KFF

www.kff.org

 

[GrandAdmiral]

I think both Medicare and Medicaid offer tools of significant financial leverage. The federal portion of Medicaid is about 75% on average. In states like Mississippi and West Virginia, it's over 80%.

Federal and State Share of Medicaid Spending | KFF

www.kff.org

I guess that's my point or question. Biden's announcement pertains to Medicare, which pays directly from the feds to the provider. I haven't seen anything similar for Medicaid, which is funneled from the feds to the states to the providers. Did I miss something?

You are correct about the breakdown however.