Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (5 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
    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    Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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.
     
    Probably the best thread for this

    This is deeply concerning
    =========================

    Let’s say a patient is considering a tubal ligation after a planned Caesarean section because she doesn’t want to get pregnant again.

    Here are some factors that pertain to that decision: her vision of her reproductive future, her doctor’s advice, state regulations, the recommendations of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the latest scientific research.


    Here are some factors that, for most patients, do not pertain: “God’s purposes,” “God’s will,” “the truth that life is a precious gift from God.”


    But if our hypothetical patient happens to be in a Catholic hospital, those factors — precisely those words — will be controlling the decision, whether or not she or her doctor believes in God’s plan.

    It’s plainly spelled out in the ethical directives of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: “Direct sterilization of either men or women, whether permanent or temporary, is not permitted in a Catholic health care institution.”

    She won’t get the operation no matter how medically safe and legal it is, no matter what she wants.

    Clearly, she should have picked a different hospital. But with the expansion of Catholic health systems all over the country, that might not be an option.

    A 2020 report by Community Catalyst, a nonprofit health advocacy group, found that four of the 10 largest health systems in the country were Catholic. The Catholic Health Association says that Catholic facilities now account for more than 1 in 7 U.S. hospital patients.

    That number is likely to grow, as Catholic health systems expand by merging with or acquiring secular hospitals and networks. This consolidation is happening near me, in the Albany, N.Y., area.

    As the Times Union recently reported, one of our large health systems, St. Peter’s Health Partners, part of a Catholic network, has begun merging with the secular Ellis Medicine, which will ultimately put “God’s will” in charge of Ellis Hospital and the Bellevue Woman’s Center, which provides pregnancy and maternity care.

    That would mean no tubal ligations for contraceptive purposes. It would also mean no abortions, vasectomies, IUDs or in vitro fertilization.

    It would most likely constrain choices in end-of-life care and end gender-affirming care.


    A patient deciding where to have her C-section — even if she still had a choice of hospitals — might not even know this.

    Why would she assume that a nonprofit hospital, buoyed by large infusions of state and federal funds, could legally withhold health care from its patients?


    But that’s exactly what happens when the church has the ultimate say in medical decisions.

    Not just at hospitals, either: Urgent care centers and physicians’ practices that are part of a Catholic network might well refuse to prescribe birth control, or to provide abortion services or counseling……..

     
    I used to work at a catholic hospital. There was a suite that was used differently one day a week, in the maternity section. It was “leased” to an outside (non-catholic) doctor group that one day and tubal ligations were performed there that day. The nurses and other workers were the same workers that staffed that place every other day, though. When I found this out, I was pretty disgusted by the hypocrisy. They wouldn’t allow insurance to pay for our birth control, which at that time the pill was fairly expensive, but to make a buck the sisters would look the other way. Just figures.
     
    Optimus Prime said:
    Probably the best thread for this

    This is deeply concerning
    =========================

    Let’s say a patient is considering a tubal ligation after a planned Caesarean section because she doesn’t want to get pregnant again.

    Here are some factors that pertain to that decision: her vision of her reproductive future, her doctor’s advice, state regulations, the recommendations of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the latest scientific research.


    Here are some factors that, for most patients, do not pertain: “God’s purposes,” “God’s will,” “the truth that life is a precious gift from God.”


    But if our hypothetical patient happens to be in a Catholic hospital, those factors — precisely those words — will be controlling the decision, whether or not she or her doctor believes in God’s plan.

    It’s plainly spelled out in the ethical directives of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: “Direct sterilization of either men or women, whether permanent or temporary, is not permitted in a Catholic health care institution.”

    She won’t get the operation no matter how medically safe and legal it is, no matter what she wants.

    Clearly, she should have picked a different hospital. But with the expansion of Catholic health systems all over the country, that might not be an option.

    A 2020 report by Community Catalyst, a nonprofit health advocacy group, found that four of the 10 largest health systems in the country were Catholic. The Catholic Health Association says that Catholic facilities now account for more than 1 in 7 U.S. hospital patients.

    That number is likely to grow, as Catholic health systems expand by merging with or acquiring secular hospitals and networks. This consolidation is happening near me, in the Albany, N.Y., area.

    As the Times Union recently reported, one of our large health systems, St. Peter’s Health Partners, part of a Catholic network, has begun merging with the secular Ellis Medicine, which will ultimately put “God’s will” in charge of Ellis Hospital and the Bellevue Woman’s Center, which provides pregnancy and maternity care.

    That would mean no tubal ligations for contraceptive purposes. It would also mean no abortions, vasectomies, IUDs or in vitro fertilization.

    It would most likely constrain choices in end-of-life care and end gender-affirming care.


    A patient deciding where to have her C-section — even if she still had a choice of hospitals — might not even know this.

    Why would she assume that a nonprofit hospital, buoyed by large infusions of state and federal funds, could legally withhold health care from its patients?


    But that’s exactly what happens when the church has the ultimate say in medical decisions.

    Not just at hospitals, either: Urgent care centers and physicians’ practices that are part of a Catholic network might well refuse to prescribe birth control, or to provide abortion services or counseling……..

    Click to expand...
    I had to leave the county to get a vasectomy because everything here is owned by Catholics.
     
    Somebody will challenge this one.

    Screenshot_20220926-193402.png
     
    MT15 said:
    I used to work at a catholic hospital. There was a suite that was used differently one day a week, in the maternity section. It was “leased” to an outside (non-catholic) doctor group that one day and tubal ligations were performed there that day. The nurses and other workers were the same workers that staffed that place every other day, though. When I found this out, I was pretty disgusted by the hypocrisy. They wouldn’t allow insurance to pay for our birth control, which at that time the pill was fairly expensive, but to make a buck the sisters would look the other way. Just figures.
    Click to expand...
    I used to work at a Catholic university. The hell I went through with the Archdiocese and BCBS to get them to cover a prescription for birth control pills for an employee who was suffering from severely painful cramps was enough for me to want to excommunicate myself.
     
    Eeyore said:
    Somebody will challenge this one.

    Screenshot_20220926-193402.png
    Click to expand...

    Condoms should only be provided to students to prevent sexually transmitted infections, not as birth control, according to a memo sent by the University of Idaho to staff last week.

    The memo, first obtained by the Idaho Press and issued to all employees on Friday, laid out the university’s reproductive policies following the enactment of Idaho’s abortion law, which bans the procedure in nearly all cases……

    www.theguardian.com

    University of Idaho says staff can offer condoms for STDs – not birth control

    Memo warns employees they should not speak in support of abortion following state ban on procedure
    www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
     
    The Texas attorney general Ken Paxton ran out of his house and jumped into a truck driven by his wife, a state senator, to avoid being served a subpoena to testify Tuesday in an abortion access case, according to court documents.

    A process server wrote in an affidavit that he was attempting to deliver the federal court subpoena Monday at Paxton’s home and ultimately had to leave the document on the ground.

    He said the Republican avoided him for more than an hour from inside his house, then dashed toward the truck and the couple drove off.

    Paxton, who is facing a variety of legal troubles as he seeks to win a third term in November, said he avoided the server out of safety concerns and said the news media should be ashamed for reporting on what happened……..

    www.theguardian.com

    Texas attorney general ran from home to avoid abortion subpoena, files say

    Republican Ken Paxton allegedly ran out of his house and jumped into truck driven by his wife to avoid person serving subpoena
    www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
     
    Optimus Prime said:
    The Texas attorney general Ken Paxton ran out of his house and jumped into a truck driven by his wife, a state senator, to avoid being served a subpoena to testify Tuesday in an abortion access case, according to court documents.

    A process server wrote in an affidavit that he was attempting to deliver the federal court subpoena Monday at Paxton’s home and ultimately had to leave the document on the ground.

    He said the Republican avoided him for more than an hour from inside his house, then dashed toward the truck and the couple drove off.

    Paxton, who is facing a variety of legal troubles as he seeks to win a third term in November, said he avoided the server out of safety concerns and said the news media should be ashamed for reporting on what happened……..

    www.theguardian.com

    Texas attorney general ran from home to avoid abortion subpoena, files say

    Republican Ken Paxton allegedly ran out of his house and jumped into truck driven by his wife to avoid person serving subpoena
    www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
    Click to expand...
    What? The process server was going to give him a thousand paper cuts?
     
    Andrea Prudente is still processing the “emotional wreckage”, three months after she was refused a life-saving abortion in Malta.

    “Having a miscarriage is traumatic for all women, especially when it’s a planned birth,” she tells The Independent.

    “Physically I’m intact, pretty much getting my strength back and more or less healthy. But the psychological damage, that has been really challenging.”

    Ms Prudente, 38, suffered an incomplete miscarriage while on a babymoon vacation with her partner Jay Weeldreyer in June.

    Due to the Mediterranean island nation’s total ban on the procedure, even in cases of rape and incest. She spent a week in hospital gravely ill, with doctors seemingly unsympathetic.

    After seven days, she and Mr Weeldreyer made the decision to safeban air ambulance 1100km to a hospital in Mallorca, Spain, a risky but necessary flights, where she could have the procedure.


    Now back home in from Issaquah, Washington, she is determined to ensure that no other women on the island nation should have to suffer the same “man-made catastrophe”.

    Last week, Ms Prudente launched an audacious legal bid in Malta’s First Hall of the Civil Court to overturn the country’s constitutional ban on abortion……..



    www.independent.co.uk

    I was denied an abortion. Now I’m fighting a country 6,000 miles away

    Andrea Prudente nearly died after suffering a miscarriage while on vacation in Malta. Now back home in Washington state, she tells Bevan Hurley of her efforts to overturn Malta’s abortion ban
    www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
     
    Optimus Prime said:
    Andrea Prudente is still processing the “emotional wreckage”, three months after she was refused a life-saving abortion in Malta.

    “Having a miscarriage is traumatic for all women, especially when it’s a planned birth,” she tells The Independent.

    “Physically I’m intact, pretty much getting my strength back and more or less healthy. But the psychological damage, that has been really challenging.”

    Ms Prudente, 38, suffered an incomplete miscarriage while on a babymoon vacation with her partner Jay Weeldreyer in June.

    Due to the Mediterranean island nation’s total ban on the procedure, even in cases of rape and incest. She spent a week in hospital gravely ill, with doctors seemingly unsympathetic.

    After seven days, she and Mr Weeldreyer made the decision to safeban air ambulance 1100km to a hospital in Mallorca, Spain, a risky but necessary flights, where she could have the procedure.


    Now back home in from Issaquah, Washington, she is determined to ensure that no other women on the island nation should have to suffer the same “man-made catastrophe”.

    Last week, Ms Prudente launched an audacious legal bid in Malta’s First Hall of the Civil Court to overturn the country’s constitutional ban on abortion……..



    www.independent.co.uk

    I was denied an abortion. Now I’m fighting a country 6,000 miles away

    Andrea Prudente nearly died after suffering a miscarriage while on vacation in Malta. Now back home in Washington state, she tells Bevan Hurley of her efforts to overturn Malta’s abortion ban
    www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
    Click to expand...

    Why did she expect sympathy? She's obviously a defective babymaking machine. Best for her to die so her husband can find a working incubator.
     
    A very sobering read on the expected continued extremism if this right wing Supreme Court for the next term. Two things will be important for us to find our way our of the untenable legal extremism this court is condemning us too. First, the minority on the court needs to continue to provide a legal road map and reasoning in their dissent for a future more liberal court to overturn these poorly decided, Republican decisions. Second, Congress and the President need to get to work on remaking this court by changing it's make up by either passing an age limit or term limit for Justices or by expanding the court.

    Unless Democrats hold on to the House and expand their Senate majority, the second isn't likely for some time in the far future, sadly. The only other thing that might possible save us is a (un)timely death by one or two of the conservatives on the SC, but that's a little morbid and act of fate that can't be counted on.

    =================

    The cataclysmic Supreme Court term that included the unprecedented leak of a draft opinion and the end of constitutional protection for abortion would, in the normal ebb and flow, be followed by a period of quiet, to let internal wounds heal and public opinion settle.

    That doesn’t appear likely in the term set to start Monday. Nothing in the behavior of the court’s emboldened majority suggests any inclination to pull back on the throttle. The Supreme Court is master of its docket, which means that it controls what cases it will hear, subject to the agreement of four justices. Already, with its calendar only partly filled, the justices have once again piled onto their agenda cases that embroil the court in some of the most inflammatory issues confronting the nation — and more are on the way.

    Last term, in addition to overruling Roe v. Wade, the conservative majority expanded gun rights, imposed severe new constraints on the power of regulatory agencies and further dismantled the wall of separation between church and state.

    If there was a question, at the start of that term, about how far and how fast a court with six conservatives would move, it was answered resoundingly by the time it recessed for the summer: “Very far, very fast,” said Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who served as solicitor general under President Barack Obama. “I hope the majority takes a step back and considers the risk that half the country may completely lose faith in the court as an institution.”

    Maybe it will, but for now, the court is marching on toward fresh territory, taking on race, gay rights and the fundamental structures of democracy — this even as the shock waves of the abortion ruling reverberate through our politics and lower courts grapple with a transformed legal regime. And there’s every indication that the court intends to adopt changes nearly as substantial — and as long-sought by conservatives — as those of last term.

    Of course, blockbuster cases can fizzle. Even if four justices vote to hear a case, the need to secure a fifth vote for an eventual majority can force incremental rulings over bold proclamations. But a six-justice supermajority means that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the most moderate of the conservatives, can’t apply the brakes alone, even in the relatively few instances where he might be so disposed. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh is the justice most likely to join Roberts in defecting from the conservative fold, but Kavanaugh’s approach has more often been to put a comforting gloss on the majority’s version — and then sign on to it anyway.

    In assembling its cases for the term, the conservative wing has at times displayed an unseemly haste — prodded by conservative activists who have seized on the opportunities presented by a court open to their efforts to reshape the law. The court reached out to decide a dispute about when the Clean Water Act applies to wetlands, even as the Environmental Protection Agency rewrites its rules on that very issue. It agreed to hear a wedding website designer’s complaint that Colorado’s law barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates her free speech rights to oppose same-sex marriage, even though Colorado authorities have not filed any complaint against her. It took the marquee case of the term — the constitutionality of affirmative action programs at colleges and universities — although the law in this area has been settled and there is no division among the lower courts.

    “They’re impatient,” Harvard Law School professor Richard Lazarus said of the conservative justices, especially the longest-serving, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. “They’ve spent a lot of time waiting for this majority to happen and they don’t plan to waste it.”

    If so, that is a perilous course for an institution whose very authority is grounded on the presumption of stability. If the majority insists on its current and hurried path, it risks deepening the very questions about the court’s legitimacy that have tormented the justices — divisions reflected in the bellicosity of their written work and that have erupted, in recent weeks, into their public debate. At a moment of extreme and increasing national division, change of such velocity and breadth is unhealthy not only for the court but also for a nation being asked to abide by its rulings.

    ==================

     
    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!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom