US-Roe vs Wade overturned

[TheVat]

In keeping with the Roberts Court's embrace of originalist interpretation, Justice Thomas will, per Article One, section two, acknowledge the great tradition of the 3/5 Compromise (1787) and declare himself 3/5 of a person, and allow Biden to appoint another jurist to supply the other 40% of his vote.  I wanted you all to have this breaking news.  

[Peterkin]

4 minutes ago, TheVat said:

In keeping with the Roberts Court's embrace of originalist interpretation, Justice Thomas will, per Article One, section two, acknowledge the great tradition of the 3/5 Compromise (1787) and declare himself 3/5 of a person, and allow Biden to appoint another jurist to supply the other 40% of his vote.  I wanted you all to have this breaking news.  

So, they've leaked the striking down of the 14th amendment already. I woulda bet a fiver  19 was next on the agenda.

[CharonY]

32 minutes ago, TheVat said:

In keeping with the Roberts Court's embrace of originalist interpretation, Justice Thomas will, per Article One, section two, acknowledge the great tradition of the 3/5 Compromise (1787) and declare himself 3/5 of a person, and allow Biden to appoint another jurist to supply the other 40% of his vote.  I wanted you all to have this breaking news.  

Perhaps it is just an elaborate process just to annul his marriage.

54 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

 How does forcing black women to have their unwanted babies facilitate white people, when it actually facilitates the future black vote. If I were a racist politician with a view to future demographics I would be facilitating non-white abortions.

It helps to consider that a) white supremacists are not necessarily internally consistent (well clearly they aren't, it is actually one of their hallmarks, similar to certain forms of facism) and b) that they also have a deep root in misogynist thoughts. Specifically, abortion empowers women, which puts them into a station where should not be and as such it is degenerate and to be opposed. At the same time, white supremacists see themselves as victims, so they "feel" that abortions (which they are already opposed for above reasons) are clearly targeting their race (even if evidence shows the opposite). While they are also unhappy with contraception (for similar reasons as mentioned), they are alright with that being provided to black folks or other minorities, though outright sterilization is of course preferred. 

Ultimately it boils down to the issue that these folks need to always consider themselves  as victims to justify their behaviour.

[Peterkin]

They tend not to have long foresight, but I'm willing to entertain the idea that they don't see any Black people voting in 20 years.

[dimreepr]

9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

They tend not to have long foresight, but I'm willing to entertain the idea that they don't see any Black people voting in 20 years.

I'm not sure America's got 20 years, if this trend continues...

[Phi for All]

12 hours ago, StringJunky said:

 How does forcing black women to have their unwanted babies facilitate white people, when it actually facilitates the future black vote.

It ensures investment opportunities in private prisons, extra law enforcement, and removing the right to vote.

[Peterkin]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/25/abortion-war-against-women-in-america

And, of course, the long nightmare is just beginning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/abortion-state-lines/

There will be lots of domestic violence over this, and many deaths.

The war's been seething underground for some time, but Trump brought it out into the open by declaring : "You can grab them by pussy " and then getting elected president.

[TheVat]

New Yorker article on what women will be dealing with more now as the Uterus OverLords gain hegemony.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/20/a-texas-teen-agers-abortion-odyssey

(written a week or two before June 24, the day of the Dobbs v Jackson ruling)

 

[StringJunky]

48 minutes ago, TheVat said:

New Yorker article on what women will be dealing with more now as the Uterus OverLords gain hegemony.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/20/a-texas-teen-agers-abortion-odyssey

(written a week or two before June 24, the day of the Dobbs v Jackson ruling)

 

Tough read.

[StringJunky]

Biden admin: Docs must offer abortion if mom’s life at risk

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration on Monday told hospitals that they “must” provide abortion services if the life of the mother is at risk, saying federal law on emergency treatment guidelines preempts state laws in jurisdictions that now ban the procedure without any exceptions following the Supreme Court’s decision to end a constitutional right to abortion.

The Department of Health and Human Services cited requirements on medical facilities in the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA. The law requires medical facilities to determine whether a person seeking treatment may be in labor or whether they face an emergency health situation — or one that could develop into an emergency — and to provide treatment.

“If a physician believes that a pregnant patient presenting at an emergency department is experiencing an emergency medical condition as defined by EMTALA, and that abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve that condition, the physician must provide that treatment,” the agency’s guidance states. “When a state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life of the pregnant person — or draws the exception more narrowly than EMTALA’s emergency medical condition definition — that state law is preempted.”

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-health-government-and-politics-4221f9306a596904b9af2e0d1fad23b9

Floating abortion clinic proposed in Gulf to bypass bans

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — A California doctor is proposing a floating abortion clinic in the Gulf of Mexico as a way to maintain access for people in southern states where abortion bans have been enacted.

The idea is to provide a clinic aboard a ship in federal waters, and out of reach of state laws, that would offer first trimester surgical abortions, contraception and other care, said Dr. Meg Autry, an obstetrician and gynecologist and a professor at the University of California San Francisco.

“There’s been an assault on reproductive rights in our country and I’m a lifelong advocate for reproductive health and choice. We have to create options and be thoughtful and creative to help people in restrictive states get the health care they deserve,” she told The Associated Press.

Autry said the idea is only in the fundraising stage through the non-profit, “PRROWESS” — short for “Protecting Reproductive Rights Of Women Endangered by State Statutes.”

The proposal comes as abortion access in the southern United States has been swiftly curtailed after the U.S. Supreme Court turned the issue of abortion back to the states.

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-health-reproductive-rights-government-and-politics-bfab2bd6604229d7b2bcad630037c4e8

 

Edited July 11, 2022 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

18 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Biden admin: Docs must offer abortion if mom’s life at risk

How could any reasonable State law differ with that?

[geordief]

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How could any reasonable State law differ with that?

Presumably they will claim that a suicide risk is not a direct threat to life

 

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, geordief said:

Presumably they will claim that a suicide risk is not a direct threat to life

 

I think it primarily means if the actual pregancy is causing physical medical harm to her life. Not sure if suicidal ideation as the result of one is covered under that law.

Quote

....EMTALA requires Medicare-participating hospitals with emergency departments to screen and treat the emergency medical conditions of patients in a non-discriminatory manner to anyone, regardless of their ability to pay, insurance status, national origin, race, creed or color.

...How does EMTALA define an emergency?  
An emergency medical condition is defined as "a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual's health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs." For example, a pregnant woman with an emergency condition must be treated until delivery is complete, unless a transfer under the statute is appropriate.

https://www.acep.org/life-as-a-physician/ethics--legal/emtala/emtala-fact-sheet/#:~:text=The Emergency Medical Treatment and,has remained an unfunded mandate.

 

39 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How could any reasonable State law differ with that?

It seems that none do. 5 make no exception for rape or incest. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/abortion-laws-by-state-roe-v-wade-00037695

I think one of the real issues will be women who miscarry and are subject to an invasive investigation under suspicion of voluntary induction rather than a tragedy for them until proven as naturally caused. Either way, involuntary or voluntary, it's a serious state breach of bodily autonomy. 

[Peterkin]

Here we go again! In the late 1960's, the same law was used to obtain abortions in cases where the woman's life was seriously threatened by the pregnancy. Some, then many physicians chose to interpret that loosely as if the woman's life is at risk. Then they included emotional risk, such as possible suicide. If you wanted an abortion, you had to apply to go before a committee or two physicians and a psychiatrist.

The committee system did not function well: the wait for a hearing would often put the termination beyond the 12-week gestation legally allowed, (In those days, you didn't get a positive result until 4-6 weeks into a pregnancy) plus it tied up valuable doctor-time, so it became a rubber-stamp process. (You don't have to come in and do the histrionics, just say you 'll kill yourself if you're forced to have this baby, and we'll approve the application.) In 1969-72, our inner city hospital was doing about 20 suctions and maybe 10 D&C's every Wednesday afternoon. Very, very few later than 16 weeks, and those would be severely defective foetuses.   

Edited July 12, 2022 by Peterkin

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How could any reasonable State law differ with that?

I would want to add that in Ireland a woman died of sepsis after denied abortion (resulting in an amendment of the Irish constitution to allow it in 2018), and in Poland something similar happened just last year.

So we got fairly recent examples what is going to happen if an unborn (and even dead) fetus counts less than their mother.

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How could any reasonable State law differ with that?

Why assume state laws are reasonable?

[CharonY]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Here we go again! In the late 1960's, the same law was used to obtain abortions in cases where the woman's life was seriously threatened by the pregnancy. Some, then many physicians chose to interpret that loosely as if the woman's life is at risk. Then they included emotional risk, such as possible suicide. If you wanted an abortion, you had to apply to go before a committee or two physicians and a psychiatrist.

Or a priest. Another issue is of course that unclear rules can result in MDs to be too afraid to do an abortion, even if it can save the mother's life, since they are afraid of repercussions.

[Peterkin]

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

Or a priest. Another issue is of course that unclear rules can result in MDs to be too afraid to do an abortion, even if it can save the mother's life, since they are afraid of repercussions.

We don't rely so much priests in Canada. They kinda lost their halos with the whole Residential School business.  The abortion issue was entirely between the doctors and the lawyers. The legislators fussed and fumed and fought among themselves but every decade, one strong Liberal government comes in and does what the voters mostly want.

[J.C.MacSwell]

26 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Why assume state laws are reasonable?

What makes you think I would?

[Peterkin]

8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What makes you think I would?

The fact that you asked

 

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How could any reasonable State law differ with that?

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

My only assumption was that any State law that differed would have to be an unreasonable one.

 

I'm certainly not naive enough to assume all State (or other) laws are reasonable.

[TheVat]

14 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Biden admin: Docs must offer abortion if mom’s life at risk

Floating abortion clinic proposed in Gulf to bypass bans.

Anything that raises a middle finger to the religious zealots shoving their beliefs at everyone is good news.  It will get ugly, as this state/federal car crash makes its way through the federal courts.

Edited July 12, 2022 by TheVat

[Peterkin]

It will get ugly at on the highways and harbours, too, when vigilantes intercept women trying to get out of their clutches, and anyone who tries to help women do that. They will be making 'citizen's arrests', beating men and groping and humiliating women in the cause of ... the usual: supremacy.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/is-it-legal-to-travel-for-abortion-after-dobbs

Quote

Like the right to privacy, which the Supreme Court recognized in 1965 as allowing married couples to use contraception and which provided the basis for Roe, the right to travel is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution: that is, the Constitution does not state that there is an individual “right to interstate travel.” The right to travel has nonetheless been the subject of longstanding precedents inferred from the structure of the Constitution and related rights such as those promoting interstate commerce or granting privileges and immunities.

 

[TheVat]

And some women with acute medical episodes where an emergency abortion is needed may die, in states where the ban is total....

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/14/texas-sues-guidance-emergency-abortions

Texas sued the federal government on Thursday over new guidance from the Biden administration directing hospitals to provide emergency abortions regardless of state bans on the procedure.

Those state bans came into effect in the wake of the US supreme court’s reversal of its landmark 1973 Roe v Wade decision.

Republican Texas attorney general Ken Paxton in the lawsuit argued the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was trying to “use federal law to transform every emergency room in the country into a walk-in abortion clinic”.

The lawsuit focused on guidance issued on Monday advising that a federal law protecting patients’ access to emergency treatment requires performing abortions when doctors believe a pregnant woman’s life or health is threatened.

The guidance came after Joe Biden, a Democrat, signed an executive order on Friday seeking to ease access to services to terminate pregnancies after the supreme court on 24 June overturned the Roe v Wade ruling recognizing a nationwide right of women to obtain abortions.

Abortion services ceased in Texas after the state’s highest court on 2 July, at Paxton’s urging, cleared the way for a nearly century-old abortion ban to take effect.

HHS said the guidance from its US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services agency did not constitute new policy but merely reminded doctors of their obligations under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

But in the lawsuit filed in Lubbock, the Republican-led state of Texas argued that federal law has never authorized the federal government to compel doctors and hospitals to perform abortions and that the guidance was unlawful.

[zapatos]

George Orwell's 'doublespeak' alive and well.

Quote

In a truly bizarre exchange during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, the leader of a national anti-abortion organization claimed that it “would not be an abortion” if a 10-year-old rape victim got pregnant and … had an abortion.

Catherine Glenn Foster, the president and CEO of Americans United for Life, was responding to questions from Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) about whether she thinks a 10-year-old girl would or should “choose” to have a baby. After some back and forth, during which Foster refused to answer the question, she came up with a response.

“I believe it would probably impact her life, and so, therefore, it would fall under any exception and would not be an abortion,” said Foster.

“Wait,” replied Swalwell, puzzled. “It would not be an abortion if a 10-year-old with her parents made the decision not to have a baby that was the result of a rape?”

“If a 10-year-old became pregnant as a result of rape and it was threatening her life, then that’s not an abortion,” Foster said. “So it would not fall under any abortion restriction in our nation.”

The Americans United for Life president appeared to be trying to redefine abortion to avoid saying that, yes, of course, a 10-year-old rape victim should be allowed to have an abortion.

https://news.yahoo.com/abortion-not-abortion-10-old-180432501.html