Roe v Wade over turned

[Turdacious]

Lotta estrogen in that post. You might want to cut down your HRT dose.

[Gene]

One thing to contemplate on in going back to the Torah, or for that matter originalism in the Constitution, is that it was all written by dudes. No female voices.

Absent the fun and games with 57 genders, we don't know who wrote the Torah. The work was transmitted through oral recitations for centuries. Could have been any number of clever wives, daughters or mothers who remembered things. Brilliant men often have brilliant moms, yes?

Some assume that no woman's voice is heard in it.

Most modern science has basic principles that did not involve female voices. Shall we question all of that too?

When women can reproduce parthenogenically then we can talk about the supremacy of the Uterus. Absent rape or strange going ons most pregnancy comes from a sex act. I note that Family court in some locations seems to blow off the sperm donor, which is sad.

or for that matter originalism in the Constitution

Since 1900 the US has added a Federal Reserve, a National Guard, an income tax, involved itself in two World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf thing, the War on Terror.... and lots of small wars. Includes intervention in Russia in 1918, invasion of small countries, covert wars against many other places, including Laos, Cambodia, Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

We had a War Economy in the late 1910s and the New Deal for most of the 1930s. Often controlled with executive orders. One President used an Executive Order to shove over 100,000 people of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps. The USSC approved it. Same President made gold bullion a felony to possess based upon an EO.

When the NIRA was shot down by the USSC Roosevelt talked of packing the Supreme Court. Constitutional crisis? Nope.

The Wickard vs Filburn ruling changed Congress's power to regulate Interstate Commerce into a license to regulate anything because of Interstate Commerce. All they gotta do is state that their law affects Interstate Commerce into the preamble of the law. Hardly sounds originalist to me.

Presidents have signed hundreds of executive orders and executive memorandum with the strength of a law. They are rarely struck down in Congress or the Courts. The US Congress has not declared war since 1941. We have been in how many places since 1945? We bumped off one in five North Koreans through bombing and famine - without any declaration of war against North Korea. We bumped off four million Vietnamese the same way.



Where is this "Originalism" that you're talking about, Nafod? Where do I find it, and is it more than a token thing? Do you seriously think that the people on the USSC who call themselves "conservative" are "originalists"?


Roe V Wade? The privacy penumbra was bullshit. On that basis we could grow weed, make firearms or drugs or do many other things - just as long as we keep it private. Even pro-choice people warned that the decision was poor.

Abortion could be based upon self ownership, but that leads to problems with the Draft/Conscription and shoving jabs into people.

[Bram]

A friend of mine is a staunch conservative. He's delighted that Roe v Wade was overturned because "now the states can decide."

But in talking about what the outcome is going to be, which is realistically only going to affect poor people, it really comes down to him being a Catholic and wanting his Catholic beliefs to be imposed on others.

All this arguing about Constitutionalism, etc. feels like a smoke-screen. The bottom line for me is: what's the outcome? And it's more unwanted children for poor women. Which will make those families poorer. And a resultant uptick in crime from kids raised without enough resources and support.

[motherjuggs&speed]

The abortion ban is a move by religious right Supreme Court Justices and an abuse of their power.

Three asinine statements in one sentence, good job.

1. There is no abortion ban. Dobbs overturned Roe and Casey:

Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey
are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the
people and their elected representatives.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 2_6j37.pdf

2. Do you have any basis at all for your claim that religion had anything to do with the decision? Did you even read the decision? Not an opinion piece, the decision itself. The legal reasoning seems clear to me. In the majority opinion, anyway. Justice Thomas's concurrence is scary with regard to unenumerated rights.

3. It was the Burger Court that abused their power by creating a supposed right with flawed reasoning and no basis in either the text of the Constitution or in common law.

Edited since I put the wrong link.

[motherjuggs&speed]

Every state had laws restricting abortion when Roe was handed down. In 1972 the Court invented a new right without basis in either the Constitution, precedent, or common law.

Really? By what right does the government require a woman to incur the medical risks (preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, birth injuries, episiotomies, yadda yadda yadda) of carrying her baby to term?

Abortion bans seem to be a clear & obvious 13th amendment violation. Holding the woman to a term of service or labor, involuntarily, without being convicted of a crime.

This is trolling, right? I hope so.

[motherjuggs&speed]

All this arguing about Constitutionalism, etc. feels like a smoke-screen.

By whom? The Court? All people who agree with the reasoning in the opinion? I happen to be in favor of legal abortion since the alternative, considering how god damn many women use it as birth control, is a hell of a lot of babies being born to women who aren't able or willing to care for them. It's going to be horrible but it isn't the job of the courts to decide what laws should have been passed. You may think you want that, since in your lifetime the courts have invented new rights and laws that liberals like. What if the courts decide to make other laws? And don't say "they just did" because they didn't do that. They overturned Casey and Roe.

[motherjuggs&speed]

The bottom line for me is: what's the outcome?

It's a problem that so many people think like you do. You want the policy you want, and whether it's the legislature or an unelected and unappointed official or a court, it doesn't matter to you who makes the laws as long as you like the laws that result. Once you establish the societal and legal precedent that laws can be made by people other than the Congress or state legislatures, as the commercial says, you can't stop at one. But there are 1000 people who just want the outcome to every one who cares about whether the Constitution was adhered to, so you win. How did you like the last two years? Governors issued decrees and cops enforced them, with no one caring about rights, Constitutional or otherwise, or whether the directives were legal at all.

[Turdacious]

A friend of mine is a staunch conservative. He's delighted that Roe v Wade was overturned because "now the states can decide."

But in talking about what the outcome is going to be, which is realistically only going to affect poor people, it really comes down to him being a Catholic and wanting his Catholic beliefs to be imposed on others.

All this arguing about Constitutionalism, etc. feels like a smoke-screen. The bottom line for me is: what's the outcome? And it's more unwanted children for poor women. Which will make those families poorer. And a resultant uptick in crime from kids raised without enough resources and support.

Do western countries with more restrictive abortion policies have higher or lower unplanned pregnancy rates? Most of them outlaw abortion at 12-16 weeks. Mississippis restriction (at the heart of this decision) was at 15 weeks.

[motherjuggs&speed]

From Kavanaugh's concurrence --

"To be clear, then, the Court’s decision today does not out-
law abortion throughout the United States. On the con-
trary, the Court’s decision properly leaves the question of
abortion for the people and their elected representatives in
the democratic process. Through that democratic process,
the people and their representatives may decide to allow or
limit abortion."

[nafod]

Brilliant men often have brilliant moms, yes?

Some assume that no woman's voice is heard in it.

No doubt more than a few of those Torah writers were momma’s boys (how you never write, Abel?) but there’s a big difference between actually driving and nagging from the back seat.

Most modern science has basic principles that did not involve female voices. Shall we question all of that too?

Most of that stuff is empirically provably right or wrong.

Where is this "Originalism" that you're talking about, Nafod? Where do I find it, and is it more than a token thing? Do you seriously think that the people on the USSC who call themselves "conservative" are "originalists"?

I’m agreeing with you that it is bullshit. But when a Scalia or Alito or Thomas do claim they are using originalism and are going back to those texts to derive meaning, it’s worth remembering that the texts were written by only white dudes, and that women did not have direct voices.

Would the outcome have been different if they had had a voice? Of course, since it is different now where they have a voice.

Abortion could be based upon self ownership, but that leads to problems with the Draft/Conscription and shoving jabs into people.

Your two cases are actually arguments for abortion. The government could step in and order pregnancies terminated (hello, China) since they won’t be able to properly care for the children, and they will become a burden on therefore and impact society, which is the justification for the draft and vaccines, the greater good for society.

[Bram]

All this arguing about Constitutionalism, etc. feels like a smoke-screen.

By whom? The Court? All people who agree with the reasoning in the opinion? I happen to be in favor of legal abortion since the alternative, considering how god damn many women use it as birth control, is a hell of a lot of babies being born to women who aren't able or willing to care for them. It's going to be horrible but it isn't the job of the courts to decide what laws should have been passed. You may think you want that, since in your lifetime the courts have invented new rights and laws that liberals like. What if the courts decide to make other laws? And don't say "they just did" because they didn't do that. They overturned Casey and Roe.

I think, as a culture, we need to get away from lumping all liberals and all conservatives together. Just because I support the environment and good public education doesn't mean I think we should abolish the police. And just because someone wants tax dollars to be spent wisely doesn't mean they're a Proud Boy. The majority of people want the same basic shit: a safe, prosperous, well-run country.

I say smoke-screen because in talking to people who support the decision, they deflect to talking about the Constitutionality of it. You on the other hand seem to be against the decision, but support the Constitutionality of it. So, it sounds like this particular point of mine was made in ignorance.

In general, I'm looking at this decision in basic economics: what are the costs and what are the benefits? The cost is that some women who want to get an abortion, for whatever reason they want one, are going to find it more difficult or impossible. The benefits are that people who think abortion is wrong can tell others how to live.

[Bram]

The bottom line for me is: what's the outcome?

It's a problem that so many people think like you do. You want the policy you want, and whether it's the legislature or an unelected and unappointed official or a court, it doesn't matter to you who makes the laws as long as you like the laws that result. Once you establish the societal and legal precedent that laws can be made by people other than the Congress or state legislatures, as the commercial says, you can't stop at one. But there are 1000 people who just want the outcome to every one who cares about whether the Constitution was adhered to, so you win. How did you like the last two years? Governors issued decrees and cops enforced them, with no one caring about rights, Constitutional or otherwise, or whether the directives were legal at all.

I think what I'm talking about is valuable.

Defanging the police in Seattle and Portland. What was the outcome? Poor.

Decriminalizing theft in San Francisco. What was the outcome? Poor.

Making abortion illegal or more difficult in 22 states. What will be the likely outcome? Poor.

I'd argue that outcomes vastly supersede Constitutionality, morality, etc.

[Bram]

A friend of mine is a staunch conservative. He's delighted that Roe v Wade was overturned because "now the states can decide."

But in talking about what the outcome is going to be, which is realistically only going to affect poor people, it really comes down to him being a Catholic and wanting his Catholic beliefs to be imposed on others.

All this arguing about Constitutionalism, etc. feels like a smoke-screen. The bottom line for me is: what's the outcome? And it's more unwanted children for poor women. Which will make those families poorer. And a resultant uptick in crime from kids raised without enough resources and support.

Do western countries with more restrictive abortion policies have higher or lower unplanned pregnancy rates? Most of them outlaw abortion at 12-16 weeks. Mississippis restriction (at the heart of this decision) was at 15 weeks.

I think this is a good, basic economic question.

Here's a study that indicates that broader access to contraceptives decreases unintended pregnancies:

https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2016/03/ ... t-abortion

Education and free/easy access to birth control methods seems to be a good measure to enact.

As for reform -- abortion, guns, police, or whatever -- I'm all for making better systems. I don't support abolishment as a solution for them though.

[motherjuggs&speed]

I'd argue that outcomes vastly supersede Constitutionality, morality, etc.

Except when the actions violate one of your shibboleths.

[motherjuggs&speed]

You on the other hand seem to be against the decision, but support the Constitutionality of it.
In general, I'm looking at this decision in basic economics: what are the costs and what are the benefits? The cost is that some women who want to get an abortion, for whatever reason they want one, are going to find it more difficult or impossible. The benefits are that people who think abortion is wrong can tell others how to live.

You don't think I said that. The decision is correct. Some states will make, have made, laws I don't agree with.

People saying that the 14th amendment or whatevs recognizes a fundamental right are being hypocritical because all of them support oppressive laws about other things.

[motherjuggs&speed]

I was going to make another point but instead I want to reiterate my hatred for humanity. Carry on.

[Turdacious]

A friend of mine is a staunch conservative. He's delighted that Roe v Wade was overturned because "now the states can decide."

But in talking about what the outcome is going to be, which is realistically only going to affect poor people, it really comes down to him being a Catholic and wanting his Catholic beliefs to be imposed on others.

All this arguing about Constitutionalism, etc. feels like a smoke-screen. The bottom line for me is: what's the outcome? And it's more unwanted children for poor women. Which will make those families poorer. And a resultant uptick in crime from kids raised without enough resources and support.

Do western countries with more restrictive abortion policies have higher or lower unplanned pregnancy rates? Most of them outlaw abortion at 12-16 weeks. Mississippis restriction (at the heart of this decision) was at 15 weeks.

I think this is a good, basic economic question.

Here's a study that indicates that broader access to contraceptives decreases unintended pregnancies:

https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2016/03/ ... t-abortion

Education and free/easy access to birth control methods seems to be a good measure to enact.

As for reform -- abortion, guns, police, or whatever -- I'm all for making better systems. I don't support abolishment as a solution for them though.

That study is absolute garbage. First, not considering changes in sexual behavior is foolish. Second they don’t take a close use at contraceptive use and efficacy. They study below, which pro choice organizations and activists refuse to take seriously despite the results, should be the gold standard: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4216614/

[Turdacious]

Bottom line: not looking good for dems in November, and Americans care a lot less about the abortion issue than I thought.
https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-conten ... esults.pdf

[Bram]

The study below, which pro choice organizations and activists refuse to take seriously despite the results, should be the gold standard: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4216614/

So that study, and your point, is that sex education and contraceptive use decreases unwanted pregnancies?

I would agree. Fund away for that shit.

[Bram]

Bottom line: not looking good for dems in November, and Americans care a lot less about the abortion issue than I thought.
https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-conten ... esults.pdf

Our country is probably fucked no matter which party is in charge.

We might as well be nice to one another and enjoy life before the sentient A.I.'s bugger us.

[JimZipCode]

This is trolling, right? I hope so.

Of course not.

According to the CDC, something on the order of 12-15,000 women have died ss a result of pregnancy or delivery complications in the US, in the 21st Century. According to CDC tracking , from 2011-4, the leading causes were:

• Cardiovascular diseases, 15.2%.
• Non-cardiovascular diseases, 14.7%.
• Infection or sepsis, 12.8%.
• Hemorrhage, 11.5%.
• Cardiomyopathy, 10.3%.
• Thrombotic pulmonary embolism, 9.1%.
• Cerebrovascular accidents, 7.4%.
• Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, 6.8%.
• Amniotic fluid embolism, 5.5%.
• Anesthesia complications, 0.3%.
• Unknown, 6.5%

Beyond the deaths, about a million (~950k) more US women suffered "Severe Maternal Morbidity" this century. That's defined as complications occuring among a specific set of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes used to identify delivery hospitalizations with SMM. There are 18 of them:

• Acute myocardial infarction
• Acute renal failure
• Adult respiratory distress syndrome
• Amniotic fluid embolism
• Cardiac arrest/ventricular fibrillation
• Disseminated intravascular coagulation
• Eclampsia (HELLP syndrome not included currently: the note says "ranges in severity, more research is needed")
• Heart failure/arrest during surgery or procedure
• Puerperal cerebrovascular disorders
• Pulmonary edema / Acute heart failure
• Severe anesthesia complications (includes “Aspiration Pnuemonitis”, but not septic shock which is under "Shock")
• Sepsis
• Shock
• Sickle cell disease with crisis
• Air and thrombotic embolism
• Blood transfusion
• Hysterectomy
• Temporary tracheostomy

There used to be 25 codes The CDC has over the years removed seven of them.
Caesarian delivery is NOT on that list. Neither are Episiotomies. Those are considered no big deal.

SMM refers just to deliveries. But there are grstational complications too. Some of the more serious stuff includes:

• Pregnancy related anemia
• Preeclampsia
• Gestational diabetes
• Hyperemesis Gravidarum (beyond mere "morning sickness", can lead to weight loss and dehydration, may require intensive treatment)
• Placenta previa
• Pre-term labor
• Polyhydramnios

By what right does the government force its female citizens to take those risks and undergo those hardships, if they don't want to?
It's an obvious instance of “involuntary servitude” without the party having been duly convicted. Denying that is retarded.

The famous aphorism is hard cases make bad laws. This one wouldn't be hard if there weren't conflicting rights. Anti-choice activist always pretend that there's only one right at issue, the baby's right to life. But there's another right, the woman's right not to be “held to service or labor”. When a chick seeks an abortion, those rights are in conflict.

From where does the government derive the authority to set aside the woman's right in favor of the baby's?
What gives any branch of government the authority to decide that the 13th amendment doesn't apply to pregnant women?

[motherjuggs&speed]

You can't really be this dumb. If the government was forcing women to have babies, like by forcibly impregnating them or compelling them to get pregnant with force or threats of force, that would be a form of involuntary servitude. But that's not what's happening. Some states have made abortions illegal. No one has outlawed contraception. No government agency forced anyone to have intercourse. or prevented the use of the morning after pill. Women aren't being forced to do anything.

[Ronald RayGun]

I heard there was really no such thing as women and that men can get preggo as well. Does this not make the overturning of Roe irrelevant?

[Grandpa's Spells]

Women aren't being forced to do anything.

I think if your post omits critical caveat "Setting aside rape," you aren't making the best argument, but some women and girls are being forced from the beginning.

Women with completely nonviable pregnancies are also being forced to carry them until the fetus miscarries, sometimes with serious consequences.

The idea that this isn't theocratic legislation intended to force women to do things they don't want to do isn't real. You don't have Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, etc. pro-life partisans. This is a very specific group of people imposing religious beliefs.

[Gene]

You don't have Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, etc. pro-life partisans. This is a very specific group of people imposing religious beliefs.

You'd be correct about the US, but how much influence do those groups you mention have in the US? Are there any open Atheists in the US Congress? Congress has two Hindus and two Bhuddists.

Our Congress reflects the voters - the majority of Americans still consider themselves some form of Christian. Many attitudes about abortion.

Muslims are in Congress but there is no consensus in Islam... there is no central authority except the Koran and the traditions.

From Al-Jazeera

"Among various schools of thought and religious communities, there can be a very wide diversity in how certain issues are interpreted – and abortion is one of those topics. Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) scholars have given a range of time during which they said it is appropriate for a Muslim to have an abortion – from a few weeks to a few months.

But the key reason they said the procedure is allowed at all is that verses in the Quran – the Islamic holy book – indicate that a fetus is not a “life” until the soul is breathed into it; that does not happen at conception, but at some later time."

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/2 ... hts-battle


I don't know who is pushing these bans.... I'm skeptical of political Christianity. Being a Christian is to lead by example, not to impose morality. We tried to impose morality with Prohibition on liquor, drugs and guns. The results were awful.