Roe vs Wade possibly to be overturned

[bacchi]

CodingHare mentioned something that I hadn't been concerned about previously...I live in a blue state with abortion rights protected by law.  But of course GOP is only for "states rights" when the state in question agrees with their position.  If Roe gets overturned, what's to stop Congress from outlawing abortion at the federal level? 

Would a California DA bother to file charges? Maybe not for the majority of California residents.

Then the SC would have to carve out a convoluted, and narrow, decision on how someone in Mississippi has standing to sue an abortion provider in California for a generalized grievance.

[PDXTabs]

For all the bad about Amazon, there's at least this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/amazon-to-reimburse-us-employees-for-abortion-related-travel-costs/ar-AAWRVPR?ocid=BingNewsSearch

Nope. To file for reimbursement, other staff need to know that you got an abortion. Which means there's an accounting database in it with people's names. Which can be turned over to state legislators for prosecution in, say, TX.

It's bullsh*t. We should need "benevolent" employers to access medical care. Nor should we need to disclose our medical conditions to co-workers.

Not quite. The benefit is for "$4,000 in travel expenses annually for non-life threatening medical treatments" which "effective to Jan. 1 retroactively, applies if an operation is not available within 100 miles (161 km) of an employee's home." Reuters: Amazon to reimburse U.S. employees who travel for abortions, other treatments

No one has to be told. If Amazon doesn't have a exclusion for abortions, it is liable. All it takes is one nosy, taliban, neighbor to notice that pregnant Jane left "for work" and came back not pregnant (there's a 4 year statute of limitations on being able to sue).

Who are they going to sue? Not Jane if you are in reference to the current Texas civil lawsuit law. Are they going to sue Amazon for $10k? You can imagine what Amazon's legal team looks like. If Amazon is under no legal obligation to retain the reimbursement records you could imagine a situation where they won't and discovery will amount to nothing.

[Chris22]

This is a fucked up situation and really solidifies that women are second-class citizens in America.
I had to have a D&C to remove a deceased, very much wanted fetus after 12 weeks. I cannot imagine being told that I had to wait for it to pass naturally and risk infection instead of giving me the choice to make the best medical decision for myself. And there are much worse situations waiting to happen if protections for abortions are gone. Men (or anyone really) trying to control or justify control of women need to back the fuck off. America should not be a christian dictatorship, and that's what this decision leads towards.
Women's rights are human rights.

Is no D&Cs a thing along with anti-abortion?  My wife had a D&C (also at 12 weeks) due to miscarriage at a Catholic hospital, it was a nonevent (from a procedural, are we allowed to do this perspective; it was obviously very traumatizing).  I understand the mechanics are similar to an abortion, but the Catholics had no issue with the D&C.  Granted, blue state, but still.

[PDXTabs]

CodingHare mentioned something that I hadn't been concerned about previously...I live in a blue state with abortion rights protected by law.  But of course GOP is only for "states rights" when the state in question agrees with their position.  If Roe gets overturned, what's to stop Congress from outlawing abortion at the federal level? 

Would a California DA bother to file charges? Maybe not for the majority of California residents.

CA is under no legal obligation to follow federal law. They can even have state laws in direct contradiction of federal law. This is how cannabis is now and how alcohol was in some states during prohibition.

[ixtap]

A President who didn't even win the popular vote got to pack the court and so now a minority opinion across the nation may well become law.

[jnw]

Chief Justice John Roberts Confirms Leaked Draft Opinion On Abortion Is Authentic but does not represent a final ruling.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-justice-roberts-leak-opinion-roe_n_627147f7e4b0cca6755ab75c

[jnw]

A President who didn't even win the popular vote got to pack the court and so now a minority opinion across the nation may well become law.

To be honest, I partly blame RBG for not retiring years ago when the democrats had control of senate. Even back then I thought she should of retired, because of her age combined by the fact she was battling cancer.  I think it was irresponsible not to retire, but respected her right to do what she wanted.. and hoped she wouldn't die at the wrong time.  But that isn't the way it turned out unfortunately.

[patchyfacialhair]

This is a fucked up situation and really solidifies that women are second-class citizens in America.
I had to have a D&C to remove a deceased, very much wanted fetus after 12 weeks. I cannot imagine being told that I had to wait for it to pass naturally and risk infection instead of giving me the choice to make the best medical decision for myself. And there are much worse situations waiting to happen if protections for abortions are gone. Men (or anyone really) trying to control or justify control of women need to back the fuck off. America should not be a christian dictatorship, and that's what this decision leads towards.
Women's rights are human rights.

Is no D&Cs a thing along with anti-abortion?  My wife had a D&C (also at 12 weeks) due to miscarriage at a Catholic hospital, it was a nonevent (from a procedural, are we allowed to do this perspective; it was obviously very traumatizing).  I understand the mechanics are similar to an abortion, but the Catholics had no issue with the D&C.  Granted, blue state, but still.

My wife's OB is a practicing Christian, and goes to the same church as us, which is why my wife picked him for her first pregnancy and has been with him ever since. My wife also chose to have a D&C when she suffered a miscarriage between our two kids. The D&C was his suggestion. The procedure was performed at the Catholic hospital in my city.

In the conservative Christian circles that I run in, this seems to be all above board. That said, I'm sure there are some that have different opinions.

[CodingHare]

This is a fucked up situation and really solidifies that women are second-class citizens in America.
I had to have a D&C to remove a deceased, very much wanted fetus after 12 weeks. I cannot imagine being told that I had to wait for it to pass naturally and risk infection instead of giving me the choice to make the best medical decision for myself. And there are much worse situations waiting to happen if protections for abortions are gone. Men (or anyone really) trying to control or justify control of women need to back the fuck off. America should not be a christian dictatorship, and that's what this decision leads towards.
Women's rights are human rights.

Is no D&Cs a thing along with anti-abortion?  My wife had a D&C (also at 12 weeks) due to miscarriage at a Catholic hospital, it was a nonevent (from a procedural, are we allowed to do this perspective; it was obviously very traumatizing).  I understand the mechanics are similar to an abortion, but the Catholics had no issue with the D&C.  Granted, blue state, but still.

The mechanics aren't similar, it is literally the same procedure.  Catholic hospitals typically allow it when the fetus is dead, but will refuse service if they determine the fetus is alive.  Super problematic when the fetus has a heartbeat but the congenital condition of no brain developing, for example.  Some hospitals will not say being born without a brain is "incompatible with life" and refuse to perform a D&C on the mother.  So then the mother has to birth the child which typically dies days after exiting the womb anyway.  Needlessly cruel, but that's dogma for you.

[CodingHare]

A President who didn't even win the popular vote got to pack the court and so now a minority opinion across the nation may well become law.

To be honest, I partly blame RBG for not retiring years ago when the democrats had control of senate. Even back then I thought she should of retired, because of her age combined by the fact she was battling cancer.  I think it was irresponsible not to retire, but respected her right to do what she wanted.. and hoped she wouldn't die at the wrong time.  But that isn't the way it turned out unfortunately.

I think she blamed herself at the end there, too.  But the fact that we have to hope there is Democrat president in charge when the SC justices retire in order to have basic human rights is pretty terrifying of our system.

[bacchi]

For all the bad about Amazon, there's at least this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/amazon-to-reimburse-us-employees-for-abortion-related-travel-costs/ar-AAWRVPR?ocid=BingNewsSearch

Nope. To file for reimbursement, other staff need to know that you got an abortion. Which means there's an accounting database in it with people's names. Which can be turned over to state legislators for prosecution in, say, TX.

It's bullsh*t. We should need "benevolent" employers to access medical care. Nor should we need to disclose our medical conditions to co-workers.

Not quite. The benefit is for "$4,000 in travel expenses annually for non-life threatening medical treatments" which "effective to Jan. 1 retroactively, applies if an operation is not available within 100 miles (161 km) of an employee's home." Reuters: Amazon to reimburse U.S. employees who travel for abortions, other treatments

No one has to be told. If Amazon doesn't have a exclusion for abortions, it is liable. All it takes is one nosy, taliban, neighbor to notice that pregnant Jane left "for work" and came back not pregnant (there's a 4 year statute of limitations on being able to sue).

Who are they going to sue? Not Jane if you are in reference to the current Texas civil lawsuit law. Are they going to sue Amazon for $10k? You can imagine what Amazon's legal team looks like. If Amazon is under no legal obligation to retain the reimbursement records you could imagine a situation where they won't and discovery will amount to nothing.

Why not Amazon? The purpose of the Texas law isn't to reward $10k but to stop abortions.

Jane's taliban neighbor can recruit her church email list and they can ALL sue for the same abortion. Only $10k will be awarded but Amazon still has to defend itself against all of the suits and each case is distinct from the others because of the "non-mutual issue or claim preclusion" clause. There are never any court costs to be awarded to the defendant. The suits are held in the court of the plaintiff and no venue change is allowed.

How long will Amazon keep this policy if their lawyers are constantly in court, flying from one corner of the state to another, and there's a trivial burden on the plaintiffs?

[PDXTabs]

How long will Amazon keep this policy if their lawyers are constantly in court, flying from one corner of the state to another, and there's a trivial burden on the plaintiffs?

Having spent over a decade working in big tech and paying attention to the legal department I would say that either:
1. They will just settle, because it is cheaper (but Jane got her abortion).
2. They will fight out of principle and damn the costs.
2a. In the process they will get really good at it.
3. They will move out of these states.
3a. Right now they are offering these benefits because they view it as better than moving, that can change.

[partgypsy]

Not really enjoying being proven right about Republican's wanting to dismantle Roe Vs Wade.  Where are all those people who vote R for the "economics" who were saying abortion rights would never actually be repealed, because it was "just" a ploy to get the religious vote?

I live in Washington State, but if Roe is repealed there is a path for a conservative majority congress to nationally outlaw abortion.  You think they are going to give a f*ck about needing 60 seats for a "mandate"?  They're going to get 50 Republican senators and a VP and ram this up our uteruses.

I am strongly considering getting the copper IUD at my next doctor's appointment.  You want to talk about FIRE on a FIRE forum?  Think about the financial implications of having an unplanned, unwanted child at 30.  Bye bye good health (pregnancy fucks most women over permanently).  Bye bye early retirement, time to buy diapers and put unwanted Timmy through college.  Oh, you don't want to raise him?  Tough, you owe child support.  You adopt him out and sign away your rights? Congrats, your family won't speak to you since you are a horrible, non-maternal person who won't raise her own blood.  Enjoy your retirement then.

I'm 44 and still have regular periods. Pregnancy is unlikely (given my history of infertility) but not impossible, and at my age, it would be a super-geriatric pregnancy with a high risk of complications. Not liking those odds, especially as I live in a state with a trigger ban.

I think it's time to take permanent preventative measures to avoid being arrested for a spontaneous abortion (i.e., miscarriage) or other condition requiring a D&C or similar procedure (my mom had that done a couple of times for uterine fibroids) or being denied lifesaving health care to prioritize a fetus. Tubal ligation seems safest.

yeah. You can do everything "right" and can still have massive health consequences. Married friend accidently got pregnant with norplant.she is Christian, decided to keep the child though a geriatric pregnancy and they were done with their family.  Beautiful, healthy kid. She had a lump after nursing but was dx as a blocked milk duct. She ended up getting a 2nd opinion when it kept getting bigger. Her child just turned 2 and she is battling aggressive breast cancer (apparently fed by all the crazy pregnancy hormones esp in a time when body is reducing in those hormones) I am praying she makes it. Some may see it as divine that she got pregnant late in life despite bc. But for me I love my friend and will be so sad if she dies and her 3 kids lose their mom. 

[jnw]

Btw, Roe vs Wade was won with a majority of republican justices voting for it and also historically the Catholic church supported abortion.

The Catholic Church has NEVER supported abortion. Period. Full stop.

Have you ever heard of Saint Thomas Aquinas? I learned about him in Philosophy 101 and his views on abortion.

[PoutineLover]

This is a fucked up situation and really solidifies that women are second-class citizens in America.
I had to have a D&C to remove a deceased, very much wanted fetus after 12 weeks. I cannot imagine being told that I had to wait for it to pass naturally and risk infection instead of giving me the choice to make the best medical decision for myself. And there are much worse situations waiting to happen if protections for abortions are gone. Men (or anyone really) trying to control or justify control of women need to back the fuck off. America should not be a christian dictatorship, and that's what this decision leads towards.
Women's rights are human rights.

Is no D&Cs a thing along with anti-abortion?  My wife had a D&C (also at 12 weeks) due to miscarriage at a Catholic hospital, it was a nonevent (from a procedural, are we allowed to do this perspective; it was obviously very traumatizing).  I understand the mechanics are similar to an abortion, but the Catholics had no issue with the D&C.  Granted, blue state, but still.

The mechanics aren't similar, it is literally the same procedure.  Catholic hospitals typically allow it when the fetus is dead, but will refuse service if they determine the fetus is alive.  Super problematic when the fetus has a heartbeat but the congenital condition of no brain developing, for example.  Some hospitals will not say being born without a brain is "incompatible with life" and refuse to perform a D&C on the mother.  So then the mother has to birth the child which typically dies days after exiting the womb anyway.  Needlessly cruel, but that's dogma for you.

It's exactly the same. My procedure was done at an abortion clinic instead of a hospital because that's what my doctor recommended. They have specialized equipment, lots of experience, and there was no risk of being bumped for a more urgent surgery like if I had gone to the hospital.
In the situation where abortions were legal, that option wouldn't have existed for me. Maybe I still would have been able to get it at a hospital because my fetus had already died, but there's plenty of cases like the one pointed out above where technically they are alive so the procedure wouldn't be allowed, like Savita Halappanavar in Ireland. It's a fact that more women will die if abortion rights aren't protected.

[OtherJen]

This is a fucked up situation and really solidifies that women are second-class citizens in America.
I had to have a D&C to remove a deceased, very much wanted fetus after 12 weeks. I cannot imagine being told that I had to wait for it to pass naturally and risk infection instead of giving me the choice to make the best medical decision for myself. And there are much worse situations waiting to happen if protections for abortions are gone. Men (or anyone really) trying to control or justify control of women need to back the fuck off. America should not be a christian dictatorship, and that's what this decision leads towards.
Women's rights are human rights.

Is no D&Cs a thing along with anti-abortion?  My wife had a D&C (also at 12 weeks) due to miscarriage at a Catholic hospital, it was a nonevent (from a procedural, are we allowed to do this perspective; it was obviously very traumatizing).  I understand the mechanics are similar to an abortion, but the Catholics had no issue with the D&C.  Granted, blue state, but still.

The mechanics aren't similar, it is literally the same procedure.  Catholic hospitals typically allow it when the fetus is dead, but will refuse service if they determine the fetus is alive.  Super problematic when the fetus has a heartbeat but the congenital condition of no brain developing, for example.  Some hospitals will not say being born without a brain is "incompatible with life" and refuse to perform a D&C on the mother.  So then the mother has to birth the child which typically dies days after exiting the womb anyway.  Needlessly cruel, but that's dogma for you.

This article—https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/understanding-pregnancy-loss-in-the-context-of-abortion-restrictions-and-fetal-harm-laws/—presents good examples of why restrictions on legal abortion have potential ramifications for all pregnancies, including the following:

Almost all of the methods used to manage miscarriages and stillbirths are identical to those used in therapeutic abortions. Therefore, the clinical training necessary to safely manage a patient experiencing a pregnancy loss is very similar to that needed to perform abortions. As such, medical residents at religiously affiliated hospitals or in states with restrictive abortion laws may struggle to obtain the necessary training and caseload to become proficient in these skills. Although miscarriage is common and it may seem as if physicians would easily obtain this training through managing pregnancy loss alone, research on this topic suggests otherwise; a study comparing U.S. OBGYN residency programs found that residents at programs with routine abortion training were significantly more likely to receive training in D&Es (a management option for pregnancy loss) as compared to those with optional or no abortion training. Another study found physicians with prior abortion training almost three times more likely to provide in-office uterine evacuations to patients experiencing pregnancy loss as compared to physicans without prior abortion training; lack of training was cited as a barrier to providing this service in cases of pregnancy loss by 16% of physicians without abortion training and just 2% of physicans with abortion training. When miscarriages present in emergency settings with significant bleeding or infection, it is imperative the clinician has the skills to promptly and safely treat that individual. Little to no training in abortion care may negatively affect providers’ ability to safely manage pregnancy loss.

and

D&X and D&E bans include language prohibiting these procedures on a “living unborn child” or
“living fetus” [non-medical terms], therefore do not explicitly prohibit these procedures for use in stillbirths. Under less common circumstances, however, fetal cardiac activity may be present during cases of miscarriage (Glossary), preventing the above procedures from being used where bans apply. For example, a patient with a pre-viable fetus at 20 weeks gestation may have a completely dilated cervix (meaning the pregnancy loss is inevitable) and be bleeding significantly, but denied surgical management until the fetus no longer has a heartbeat or until the situation is life threatening. A study of Catholic-owned hospitals documented several cases of patients who were actively miscarrying and denied uterine evacuation while cardiac activity was still detectable, leading to delays in care and transfers to outside hospitals. It is therefore possible that surgical bans on abortion may limit medical decision making in nuanced cases of pregnancy loss.

[partgypsy]

Btw, Roe vs Wade was won with a majority of republican justices voting for it and also historically the Catholic church supported abortion.

The Catholic Church has NEVER supported abortion. Period. Full stop.

Have you ever heard of Saint Thomas Aquinas? I learned about him in Philosophy 101 and his views on abortion.

I would have to agree with Michaelabq, that the Catholic church is anti abortion, full stop To the extent the Catholic church is more restrictive than majority Christianity (prodastant/Methodist). How it is interpreted in Judaical scripture. As well as Islam on this subject (when the "quickening" occurs). That said, 7 day aventists don't eat meat. Mormons do not drink alcohol. I don't think minority religious populations should pass laws that apply to everyone, regardless if they are believers in those tenets In the same way many Islamic countries like Morocco, you can buy a drink, even though 99% of the population is abstaining.

[jrhampt]

I think the poster may have been referring to the fact that historically before "quickening" abortion (done medicinally in the old days) was fine.  This would probably be up to 17 weeks or so, definitely through the first trimester at least.

[PDXTabs]

I live in Washington State, but if Roe is repealed there is a path for a conservative majority congress to nationally outlaw abortion.  You think they are going to give a f*ck about needing 60 seats for a "mandate"?  They're going to get 50 Republican senators and a VP and ram this up our uteruses.

But the fact that we have to hope there is Democrat president in charge when the SC justices retire in order to have basic human rights is pretty terrifying of our system.

I think that the US system of government sucks and it is beyond time to change it. If by some anti-miracle the GOP manages to ban abortions through an act of congress I think that it will be the end of the union. I don't see the west coast going along with that, personally.

[bacchi]

I think that the US system of government sucks and it is beyond time to change it. If by some anti-miracle the GOP manages to ban abortions through an act of congress I think that it will be the end of the union. I don't see the west coast going along with that, personally.

Marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug (worse than meth!) and many states have chosen to legalize it, contrary to federal law.

But with a Trump/DeSantis Presidency, there would be financial retaliation and funds would be withheld from the pro-choice states (like the "sanctuary city" funds).

I was going to disagree but you're probably right. California has the financial and political will to tell the feds to GFT.

[iris lily]

Thanks a lot, RBG.

_W

I’m reading that RBG disliked the Roe vs. Wade decision because it was constitutionally illogical, and it was open to being over turned due to its do its unconstitutionality.

However I do not think she died deliberately so as to test that water.

[bacchi]

Thanks a lot, RBG.

_W

I’m reading that RBG disliked the Roe vs. Wade decision because it was constitutionally illogical, and it was open to being over turned due to its do its unconstitutionality.

Not quite. She agreed with the decision but...

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/09/24/ruth-bader-ginsburg-abortion-roe-v-wade-catholic

Ginsburg thought the ruling was correct, but too sweeping.
[...]
A narrower decision, she felt, was normal and proper judicial behavior, and if the court had exercised more restraint, the country would not have had the decades of controversy we have witnessed. Given that state legislatures were already leaning toward liberalization of abortion statutes, abortion would have soon become widely legal through legislative means, with broader support.
[...]
Roe v. Wade "invited no dialogue with legislators," she wrote. "Instead, it seemed entirely to remove the ball from the legislators' court."

[iris lily]

Is there a simple explanation for us non-Americans as to why the Federal government doesn’t just pass legislation to protect this right?

I assume that Republicans would try to block it, but don’t the Democrats control both houses?

The only means of truly protecting abortion at the federal level would be to enshrine it in the Constitution, which requires a majority in both houses of Congress as well as a subsequent 3/4 majority of states to ratify.

Any other federal law enabling access to abortion would be at risk of being dismantled or tossed out with enough political will.

This. It's not like Ireland where we could have a popular referendum for the amendment and change the constitution in less than a year.

I agree that amending the constitution to allow abortion is the only way to make it fail safe to Political winds of change. And that would never happen.

It doesn’t matter what Congress does because if the Supreme Court says it is a states’ right issue, I would think any congressional law would be overturned by The Supremes as well.

I don’t mind that the constitutionality issue is being brought forth by the Supreme Court decision, assuming it is true. I like to see the constitution upheld  even when it hurts. I agree that it’s a State decision, according to our current constitution anyway.

In this case YES the decision does hurt. I’m probably  as far left on abortion as anyone on this forum. I say I am “pro abortion” because I’m more or less am, I don’t need to tiptoe around the issue.

[iris lily]

It disgusts me the states who have trigger bans in place which don't account for the cases of incest or rape.  I don't like abortion but I think it's between God, the doctor and the woman; not a bunch of politicians.   There are going to be massive protests if this ruling passes.  I see there being huge turnout this midterm.

I’ve never understood the exemptions for rape or incest. While I’m not one of them, those who uphold the rights of the unborn uphold the rights of the unborn regardless of the unborn’s method of conception. To me, it’s logically inconsistent to have exemptions in this case.

[wenchsenior]

@Sibley put it very well. How many have to die before the public rises up to protect women from thoae who would impose their religion as law? I agree that they won't likely stop there: after abortion it will be funding for birth control,  sex education,  divorce laws, on and on..

Too many people still believe that the US is a Christian nation. They want the Christian version of sharia.

Certainly most of my city believes in this crap.  I was just researching candidates for local elections and ALL THE OPTIONS are creepy christians who go on and on in their promo materials about 'god this and god that' and 'personal liberties' (by which they mean no vaccines, no masks, and all the guns they can carry), it makes my skin fucking crawl.  I picked the candidates that had the least religious blather on their pages, but I still feel absolutely soiled every time I vote. And Texas is cueing up legislature to make abortion a felony the second Roe v Wade is overturned.

[wenchsenior]

If we are going to go down that path (that a glob of cells that may develop into a sentient creatures is = to person, I personally believe all already existing sentient creatures have personhood to be granted immediately. That they have rights and should have legal representation to protect their rights. we can start with the great apes, elephants, all cetaceans, and work our way down from there.

Not only that, but existing creatures could hypothetically be entitled to MORE rights than a hypothetical future human. 

Human 'morality' is so ridiculous.

[wenchsenior]

It disgusts me the states who have trigger bans in place which don't account for the cases of incest or rape.  I don't like abortion but I think it's between God, the doctor and the woman; not a bunch of politicians.   There are going to be massive protests if this ruling passes.  I see there being huge turnout this midterm.

You are a LOT more optimistic than I am. I think this will barely budge turnout. But even if it does boost turnout, too little too late.

[PDXTabs]

I think that the US system of government sucks and it is beyond time to change it. If by some anti-miracle the GOP manages to ban abortions through an act of congress I think that it will be the end of the union. I don't see the west coast going along with that, personally.

Marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug (worse than meth!) and many states have chosen to legalize it, contrary to federal law.

But with a Trump/DeSantis Presidency, there would be financial retaliation and funds would be withheld from the pro-choice states (like the "sanctuary city" funds).

I was going to disagree but you're probably right. California has the financial and political will to tell the feds to GFT.

I should clarify that my above statement was meant to mean a ban in practice, not a paper ban like cannabis is banned but I can buy it from a store walking distance from my house and post about it on the internet and feds don't show up to my house to haul me off to prison.

[waltworks]

You are a LOT more optimistic than I am. I think this will barely budge turnout. But even if it does boost turnout, too little too late.

Democrats always find a way to make the perfect the enemy of the good and self-sabotage, though, even if they turn out. You could make a decent argument that Nader voters in 2000 caused this whole disaster (along with the Iraq war) because they refused to vote strategically and handed Bush the presidency.

-W

[CodingHare]

It disgusts me the states who have trigger bans in place which don't account for the cases of incest or rape.  I don't like abortion but I think it's between God, the doctor and the woman; not a bunch of politicians.   There are going to be massive protests if this ruling passes.  I see there being huge turnout this midterm.

I’ve never understood the exemptions for rape or incest. While I’m not one of them, those who uphold the rights of the unborn uphold the rights of the unborn regardless of the unborn’s method of conception. To me, it’s logically inconsistent to have exemptions in this case.

I think a lot more people understand the visceral horror of having your rapist continue to violate your body for at minimum 9 months after their initial assault than they understand other reasons like "I don't want a baby even with a trusted loyal partner."

Also a lot of people, by their actions, make it clear that in that case the baby isn't the mother's "fault", so they don't need to uphold the punishment of having an unwanted child.  Unlike those slutty women having consensual sex with men, who deserve to have their lives and bodies uprooted. /s

[Michael in ABQ]

Btw, Roe vs Wade was won with a majority of republican justices voting for it and also historically the Catholic church supported abortion.

The Catholic Church has NEVER supported abortion. Period. Full stop.

Have you ever heard of Saint Thomas Aquinas? I learned about him in Philosophy 101 and his views on abortion.

I'm not sure what your professor spoke about regarding Thomas Aquinas' views on abortion - but it was either wrong or incomplete.

Thomas Aquinas, while a well-regarded Catholic scholar, did not speak for the Catholic Church. His understanding of biology and embryology dated back to Aristotle. He still did not support abortion at any point, he just thought that before the "quickening" that a soul was not present. With modern science we know that at the moment of conception a new, unique human life is created. Any arbitrary date after that is just a stage of growth - just as a toddler is a different stage of growth from a teenager. Both are fully human, as is a full-term baby moments before birth, or a single-cell fertilized egg (zygote).

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/st-thomas-aquinas-c-1225-1274

Summa Theologica delineates St. Thomas Aquinas’s opinion on the moral status of the embryo or fetus and the act of abortion. His discussion of sin, morality, and murder indicates his views on the development of life within the womb. These sections show that Aquinas believed in the progression of life from a “vegetable”-like, unanimated state to an animal life and finally to a human, animated state. Summa Theologica offers no defense of abortion as a permissible act at any stage in the pregnancy, but it does specify that once the fetus has become animated (when he believed ensoulment of the living human being took place), it is homicide to kill it. This measure of ensoulment or delayed hominization (the belief that the embryo or fetus was not a human life with a soul until a particular event after conception) is typically equated with the stage at which quickening took place—defined by Aristotle as forty days for boys and eighty days after conception for girls.

[Kris]

I’ve never understood the exemptions for rape or incest. While I’m not one of them, those who uphold the rights of the unborn uphold the rights of the unborn regardless of the unborn’s method of conception. To me, it’s logically inconsistent to have exemptions in this case.

I agree. And it exposes the dirty underbelly of that logic: Those who advocate for exemptions for rape or incest are basically saying that those aren't the mother's "fault". Meaning, of course, that all the other cases are her "fault."

And they think they are the humane ones.

[wenchsenior]

You are a LOT more optimistic than I am. I think this will barely budge turnout. But even if it does boost turnout, too little too late.

Democrats always find a way to make the perfect the enemy of the good and self-sabotage, though, even if they turn out. You could make a decent argument that Nader voters in 2000 caused this whole disaster (along with the Iraq war) because they refused to vote strategically and handed Bush the presidency.

-W

Yup. They are exceptional in so many ways: they reign supreme at terrible messaging, at sabotaging each other through infighting, at being incompetent at strategy, at focusing on and highlighting every sliver of difference between people and groups rather than commonalities, at activating to march for 'sexy causes' rather than actually putting in the multigenerational work at grassroots level to take over governments, and at not understanding basic human psychology (which might help them overcome all the stuff they are utter shit at).

I will say, they are reasonably competent at actually governing, but the aforementioned list means they almost never get the opportunity.

[RetiredAt63]

It's not like pregnancy and delivery are perfectly safe.  They are not.* 

Neither is hormonal birth control - where clotting risks are much greater than the Covid vaccine that got dropped because of clotting risks.   But it is still safer than pregnancy and delivery. Apart from all the really bad results, one common side effect of pregnancy and delivery is hemorrhoids.  They don's tell us that when we are young.


* Maternal mortality ratio is the number of women who die from pregnancy-related causes while pregnant or within 42 days of pregnancy termination per 100,000 live births. The data are estimated with a regression model using information on the proportion of maternal deaths among non-AIDS deaths in women ages 15-49, fertility, birth attendants, and GDP.

    Canada maternal mortality rate for 2017 was 10.00, a 0% increase from 2016.
    Canada maternal mortality rate for 2016 was 10.00, a 9.09% decline from 2015.
    Canada maternal mortality rate for 2015 was 11.00, a 0% increase from 2014.
    Canada maternal mortality rate for 2014 was 11.00, a 0% increase from 2013.

From https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CAN/canada/maternal-mortality-rate


US data:  2018    17.4%        2019   20.1%        2020  23.8%

The US rates are so much higher than Canada's, almost double!  And looking at the detailed table, it is black women who are dying the most, then white. Hispanic are close to Canadian numbers.  No info on other ethnicities.
Full data here:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2020/maternal-mortality-rates-2020.htm

[jnw]

I’ve never understood the exemptions for rape or incest. While I’m not one of them, those who uphold the rights of the unborn uphold the rights of the unborn regardless of the unborn’s method of conception. To me, it’s logically inconsistent to have exemptions in this case.

I agree. And it exposes the dirty underbelly of that logic: Those who advocate for exemptions for rape or incest are basically saying that those aren't the mother's "fault". Meaning, of course, that all the other cases are her "fault."

And they think they are the humane ones.

A person advocating for abortion exemptions for rape or incest does not mean that same person thinks all other cases are the fault of the woman.. that's flawed logic.  I am saying it disgusts me when I hear politicians going on how the woman shouldn't have a choice with even cases of rape or incest.  And I said, for all cases, it isn't my place to decide nor a politician's.. it's between God , the pregnant woman and the doctor.  I honestly don't think about "fault" when it comes to this, and I don't want Roe vs Wade overturned.

[Kris]

I’ve never understood the exemptions for rape or incest. While I’m not one of them, those who uphold the rights of the unborn uphold the rights of the unborn regardless of the unborn’s method of conception. To me, it’s logically inconsistent to have exemptions in this case.

I agree. And it exposes the dirty underbelly of that logic: Those who advocate for exemptions for rape or incest are basically saying that those aren't the mother's "fault". Meaning, of course, that all the other cases are her "fault."

And they think they are the humane ones.

A person advocating for abortion exemptions for rape or incest does not mean that same person thinks all other cases are the fault of the woman.. that's flawed logic.  I am saying it disgusts me when I hear politicians going on how the woman shouldn't have a choice with even cases of rape or incest.  And I said, for all cases, it isn't my place to decide nor a politician's.. it's between God , the pregnant woman and the doctor.  I honestly don't think about "fault" when it comes to this, and I don't want Roe vs Wade overturned.

And I am saying it disgusts me when I see people saying that abortion should be limited to cases of rape or incest. Because that implies a woman should only be allowed an abortion if the sex that resulted in pregnancy was not something she wanted to have and chose freely.

[jnw]

I’ve never understood the exemptions for rape or incest. While I’m not one of them, those who uphold the rights of the unborn uphold the rights of the unborn regardless of the unborn’s method of conception. To me, it’s logically inconsistent to have exemptions in this case.

I agree. And it exposes the dirty underbelly of that logic: Those who advocate for exemptions for rape or incest are basically saying that those aren't the mother's "fault". Meaning, of course, that all the other cases are her "fault."

And they think they are the humane ones.

A person advocating for abortion exemptions for rape or incest does not mean that same person thinks all other cases are the fault of the woman.. that's flawed logic.  I am saying it disgusts me when I hear politicians going on how the woman shouldn't have a choice with even cases of rape or incest.  And I said, for all cases, it isn't my place to decide nor a politician's.. it's between God , the pregnant woman and the doctor.  I honestly don't think about "fault" when it comes to this, and I don't want Roe vs Wade overturned.

And I am saying it disgusts me when I see people saying that abortion should be limited to cases of rape or incest. Because that implies a woman should only be allowed an abortion if the sex that resulted in pregnancy was not something she wanted to have and chose freely.

Understood. Okay well I'm not saying that.  (This chain of conversation started from a post I had made.)

[GuitarStv]

Ah, we all knew this was coming.  That's what happens when you skew the supreme court extremely far right . . . you get far right legal decisions.

[CodingHare]

Ah, we all knew this was coming.  That's what happens when you skew the supreme court extremely far right . . . you get far right legal decisions.

All of us except Susan Collins, who is very, very shocked right now, she'll tell you.

Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justices confirmed to be a joke and pure theater.

[Kris]

Ah, we all knew this was coming.  That's what happens when you skew the supreme court extremely far right . . . you get far right legal decisions.

Yep. I know that there was a line of thought among some liberals for a long time that Republicans would never actually push to end Roe because abortion was their biggest tool to whip up their base, so why would they give it up? But that only obtained when the GOP leadership was comprised mostly of amoral cynics. In recent years, the nutbag true believers have taken over. Anyone with eyes to see has known that. So here we are.

[GuitarStv]

Ah, we all knew this was coming.  That's what happens when you skew the supreme court extremely far right . . . you get far right legal decisions.

Yep. I know that there was a line of thought among some liberals for a long time that Republicans would never actually push to end Roe because abortion was their biggest tool to whip up their base, so why would they give it up? But that only obtained when the GOP leadership was comprised mostly of amoral cynics. In recent years, the nutbag true believers have taken over. Anyone with eyes to see has known that. So here we are.

Is there any way that women could order abortion pills online to mostly bypass the lack of service that roe v. wade's repeal will cause?

[FIRE Artist]

Chief Justice Roberts just verified that the opinion is authentic, it looks like federal abortion rights will not exist in a few months when the opinion is officially delivered.

As usual, poor people will be the only ones really screwed by this.

However, I do agree with seattlecyclone that the original Roe opinion was flimsy at best and this one (overturning Roe and Casey) has much better logic. That's little consolation to all the poor women who will die/have their lives ruined by this decision though.

Poor women and teenage girls. 

The first pretty white teenage girl who dies from a botched back alley or attempted self inflicted abortion will be made a martyr.  I wonder how long this is going to take until the first one comes to light.  4 months?  6?

[Kris]

Ah, we all knew this was coming.  That's what happens when you skew the supreme court extremely far right . . . you get far right legal decisions.

Yep. I know that there was a line of thought among some liberals for a long time that Republicans would never actually push to end Roe because abortion was their biggest tool to whip up their base, so why would they give it up? But that only obtained when the GOP leadership was comprised mostly of amoral cynics. In recent years, the nutbag true believers have taken over. Anyone with eyes to see has known that. So here we are.

Is there any way that women could order abortion pills online to mostly bypass the lack of service that roe v. wade's repeal will cause?

That would only work for earlier-term pregnancies. It can also be quite painful.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-americans-can-expect-if-abortion-pills-become-their-only-safe-option/

I did see something earlier today about someone having published instructions online to make DIY abortion pills. So, yeah. That’s where we are heading.

Edit: also, in the states that criminalize abortion, ordering the pills online is a paper trail that they could use to prosecute you. And of course, they will.

[FIRE Artist]

Ah, we all knew this was coming.  That's what happens when you skew the supreme court extremely far right . . . you get far right legal decisions.

Yep. I know that there was a line of thought among some liberals for a long time that Republicans would never actually push to end Roe because abortion was their biggest tool to whip up their base, so why would they give it up? But that only obtained when the GOP leadership was comprised mostly of amoral cynics. In recent years, the nutbag true believers have taken over. Anyone with eyes to see has known that. So here we are.

Is there any way that women could order abortion pills online to mostly bypass the lack of service that roe v. wade's repeal will cause?

Probably not legally.  States that ban abortion would likely put the morning after and abortion pills on the contraband list making it impossible for out of state pharmacies to legally ship it from out of state. 

[redbird]

This is incredibly frustrating. When I FIREd, I moved to the US south for financial, LCOL reasons. Of course there were things here that annoyed me, but I was willing to look past it for the LCOL reasons and I do genuinely like the town I live in. But ever since Trump got elected, I feel like the red states have just been a fast downward spiral. I've been wanting out for a few years now and was just waiting for my MIL to pass on, as she lives in this town, is widowed, her friends are slowly dying off, and DH and I wanted to be there for her. This ruling feels like the straw that broke the camel's back though. I don't think I can wait for MIL to pass away anymore. I'm tired of feeling like, as a woman, I am a lesser than. I didn't choose to be born a woman. I just was through the luck of the draw. I don't understand why my rights are being eroded and attacked just because I own a uterus.

And it's not even just me. To see gay rights and trans rights being eroded too, even though I am personally not gay or trans, disgusts and appalls me. I don't like feeling like the money I pay for various state taxes helps support these disgusting conservative administrations and the things they do that I don't support.

I vote, but it feels like my votes always go into a black hole. Every single time, the conservative person on the ballet gets the position. What's really terrible is I feel like people like me leaving these states just makes these states worse for those who can't leave. I feel terrible for those people but, for my own mental health, which I feel like has been affected so much by these things... it can't take staying here anymore. I'm going to have to suck it up and deal with the higher cost of living elsewhere. It makes my frugal side sad, but I can afford it.

[CodingHare]

Is there any way that women could order abortion pills online to mostly bypass the lack of service that roe v. wade's repeal will cause?

Probably not legally.  States that ban abortion would likely put the morning after and abortion pills on the contraband list making it impossible for out of state pharmacies to legally ship it from out of state.

Ding ding ding.  Which means we get to order pills from Mexico.  Definitely won't be cut with rat poison or anything.

See also all the bills Texas is passing to make it possible to sue anyone involved in helping a person get an abortion.  Send them meds? Sued.  Buy them a plane ticket to a blue state? Sued.

[Imma]

Btw, Roe vs Wade was won with a majority of republican justices voting for it and also historically the Catholic church supported abortion.

The Catholic Church has NEVER supported abortion. Period. Full stop.

Have you ever heard of Saint Thomas Aquinas? I learned about him in Philosophy 101 and his views on abortion.

I'm not sure what your professor spoke about regarding Thomas Aquinas' views on abortion - but it was either wrong or incomplete.

Thomas Aquinas, while a well-regarded Catholic scholar, did not speak for the Catholic Church. His understanding of biology and embryology dated back to Aristotle. He still did not support abortion at any point, he just thought that before the "quickening" that a soul was not present. With modern science we know that at the moment of conception a new, unique human life is created. Any arbitrary date after that is just a stage of growth - just as a toddler is a different stage of growth from a teenager. Both are fully human, as is a full-term baby moments before birth, or a single-cell fertilized egg (zygote).

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/st-thomas-aquinas-c-1225-1274

Summa Theologica delineates St. Thomas Aquinas’s opinion on the moral status of the embryo or fetus and the act of abortion. His discussion of sin, morality, and murder indicates his views on the development of life within the womb. These sections show that Aquinas believed in the progression of life from a “vegetable”-like, unanimated state to an animal life and finally to a human, animated state. Summa Theologica offers no defense of abortion as a permissible act at any stage in the pregnancy, but it does specify that once the fetus has become animated (when he believed ensoulment of the living human being took place), it is homicide to kill it. This measure of ensoulment or delayed hominization (the belief that the embryo or fetus was not a human life with a soul until a particular event after conception) is typically equated with the stage at which quickening took place—defined by Aristotle as forty days for boys and eighty days after conception for girls.

This wikipedia article is very informative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_abortion  I was raised Catholic and I was always taught that in the early Church, abortion wasn't considered as sinful as it is considered today, and reading this article confirms to me that the issue in the historic Church was not as black and white as it is today and there were different schools of thought within the Church. Seems like the current view of the Church has been the same since 1869.

But this is not about whether life starts at conception or not. This is about extremely draconian laws being put into place to punish desperate women in terrible situations. If the goals is to reduce the amount of abortions - a goal that I fully support - then there are far more effective ways to do that. No need to put scary laws into place. You can easily almost eliminate abortion through a few different policies. We've managed to do that in my country, you guys can do it too. Number one is making sure all teenagers know you get pregnant. Secondly, making contraception easy to obtain (I was always taught that the Catholic position is to follow your own conscience in this regard) and thirdly, making sure families are supported financially.

There will always be a category of non-preventable abortions: pregnancies that occured due to force, failure of contraceptive methods in situations where having a child is absolutely impossible, abortions due to medical reasons. But those are a relatively small part of the total amount of abortions.

[CodingHare]

This is incredibly frustrating. When I FIREd, I moved to the US south for financial, LCOL reasons. Of course there were things here that annoyed me, but I was willing to look past it for the LCOL reasons and I do genuinely like the town I live in. But ever since Trump got elected, I feel like the red states have just been a fast downward spiral. I've been wanting out for a few years now and was just waiting for my MIL to pass on, as she lives in this town, is widowed, her friends are slowly dying off, and DH and I wanted to be there for her. This ruling feels like the straw that broke the camel's back though. I don't think I can wait for MIL to pass away anymore. I'm tired of feeling like, as a woman, I am a lesser than. I didn't choose to be born a woman. I just was through the luck of the draw. I don't understand why my rights are being eroded and attacked just because I own a uterus.

And it's not even just me. To see gay rights and trans rights being eroded too, even though I am personally not gay or trans, disgusts and appalls me. I don't like feeling like the money I pay for various state taxes helps support these disgusting conservative administrations and the things they do that I don't support.

I vote, but it feels like my votes always go into a black hole. Every single time, the conservative person on the ballet gets the position. What's really terrible is I feel like people like me leaving these states just makes these states worse for those who can't leave. I feel terrible for those people but, for my own mental health, which I feel like has been affected so much by these things... it can't take staying here anymore. I'm going to have to suck it up and deal with the higher cost of living elsewhere. It makes my frugal side sad, but I can afford it.

Red states invest hard in gerrymandering to negate blue votes.  We've known for years that they cheat.  I don't blame anyone who leaves for their own health and safety.

We need to cut off the flow of funds from blue states.  Blue states make the money, red states take it.  The low cost of living in red states is actively subsidized by my blue state taxes.  We shouldn't let a single federal dollar into states that outlaw abortion.  They want to go their own way? Let them.

If I was in a red state, I'd be on a sex strike.  No sex without women's healthcare.  That's just responsible, and totally what men want, right?

[CrustyBadger]

Is there any way that women could order abortion pills online to mostly bypass the lack of service that roe v. wade's repeal will cause?

Right now there is.

First off, these aren't abortion pills but it's a list of who will send you Plan B, which some women find hard to get in stores.

https://www.planbonestep.com/where-to-buy-plan-b

Here is a guide for options for getting medical abortion pills online.  I'm sure it will be updated and/or things will change.

https://www.plancpills.org/guide-how-to-get-abortion-pills#faq

[RetiredAt63]

If I was in a red state, I'd be on a sex strike.  No sex without women's healthcare.  That's just responsible, and totally what men want, right?

They seem to want the 50s back.  An idealized 50s, a time when you had a great life if you white and male.  White and female you were second class*, anything else you were third class.

Well in the 50s there had been no sexual revolution, no pill.  If a man got a woman pregnant he married her (and now we have paternity testing, so guys will be on the hook for child support a lot more effectively than they used to be).  Most girls/women would not go "all the way" because they might get pregnant, and then they were called teases (and worse).  And sex education was pathetic.

So it amazes me that men want this, because then they are going to meet/date women who don't want to have sex.  It is a complete social package. 

Lysistrata united.


*And if you don't believe me, I can give you lots of examples from my mother's life and my life.  And that was Canada, the US was worse.