Extreme right-wing partisan decisions made by the Republican Supreme Court

[GuitarStv]

There is no end of outrage for these people so long as LGTBQ people exist and women are making any choices for themselves not first approved by the man lawfully in charge of them.

Don't sell them short.  They've also been working hard to weaken the voter's rights act so that Republicans can keep non-white people away from the polls.

[sui generis]

There is no end of outrage for these people so long as LGTBQ people exist and women are making any choices for themselves not first approved by the man lawfully in charge of them.

Don't sell them short.  They've also been working hard to weaken the voter's rights act so that Republicans can keep non-white people away from the polls.

True.  And if all else fails, they can always stoke terror by reminding their base about all the immigrants that are on their way to invade the country.

[PKFFW]

Of course it impacts them too. You'd have to be a real moron not to get that.

And yet there are those who don't get it and won't until it smacks them in the face.

That's likely because it only really affects those that play by the rules.  It's a relatively simple matter to get around those rules if one has the means or desire.  Number 45 is a shining example of exactly how easy.  So in reality, it sort of doesn't affect men unless the man in question accepts it.  Hence why so many men either don't care or support the decision.

[PDXTabs]

Of course it impacts them too. You'd have to be a real moron not to get that.

And yet there are those who don't get it and won't until it smacks them in the face.

That's likely because it only really affects those that play by the rules.  It's a relatively simple matter to get around those rules if one has the means or desire.

It is certainly easy to get around them if you have sufficient desire. ORS 25.247 says that if I go to prison I don't have to pay child support (unless I have a pile of money somewhere). I, personally, don't think that's really a motivation for most people to go to prison. Short of that I could not pay my child support and immediately have my wages and/or bank accounts garnished, never see another tax refund, have my US passport revoked, and probably lose my drivers license. I guess that some people are willing to live like that, I'm not.

Also, just for the record, I'm happy to pay to support my kids.

[PKFFW]

It is certainly easy to get around them if you have sufficient desire. ORS 25.247 says that if I go to prison I don't have to pay child support (unless I have a pile of money somewhere). I, personally, don't think that's really a motivation for most people to go to prison. Short of that I could not pay my child support and immediately have my wages and/or bank accounts garnished, never see another tax refund, have my US passport revoked, and probably lose my drivers license. I guess that some people are willing to live like that, I'm not.

Also, just for the record, I'm happy to pay to support my kids.

Firstly, I'm glad you're happy to pay to support your kids.

You could also use corporate trusts and other such structures to in effect earn zero and own nothing than can be taken.  You could use legal challenges until the other party couldn't afford to fight any more.  You could manipulate/intimidate/coerce the other party into aborting the fetus (even if illegal).  That's just three options I can think of, I'm sure there are others.

I admit my wording was not really precise as the above would certainly be "playing by the rules" (except accessing an abortion if it is illegal).  I simply meant that those that don't want to pay child support have plenty of options to get around it.

[Abe]

There is no end of outrage for these people so long as LGTBQ people exist and women are making any choices for themselves not first approved by the man lawfully in charge of them.

Don't sell them short.  They've also been working hard to weaken the voter's rights act so that Republicans can keep non-white people away from the polls.

True.  And if all else fails, they can always stoke terror by reminding their base about all the immigrants that are on their way to invade the country.

I think they'll go for the pincer-move of maximum outrage to strike while the iron is hot:
1. Illegals! They took our jobs!
2. Bathrooms! Gays in bathrooms! Marrying!
3. VOTING FRAUD!!! Not the Republicans getting indicted for it, but the other sneaky kind involving liberals!

This victory is just throwing chum in the water. The sharks are circling and won't notice that they're biting off their own tails in the feeding frenzy.

[PDXTabs]

It is certainly easy to get around them if you have sufficient desire. ORS 25.247 says that if I go to prison I don't have to pay child support (unless I have a pile of money somewhere). I, personally, don't think that's really a motivation for most people to go to prison. Short of that I could not pay my child support and immediately have my wages and/or bank accounts garnished, never see another tax refund, have my US passport revoked, and probably lose my drivers license. I guess that some people are willing to live like that, I'm not.

Also, just for the record, I'm happy to pay to support my kids.

Firstly, I'm glad you're happy to pay to support your kids.

You could also use corporate trusts and other such structures to in effect earn zero and own nothing than can be taken.  You could use legal challenges until the other party couldn't afford to fight any more.  You could manipulate/intimidate/coerce the other party into aborting the fetus (even if illegal).  That's just three options I can think of, I'm sure there are others.

I admit my wording was not really precise as the above would certainly be "playing by the rules" (except accessing an abortion if it is illegal).  I simply meant that those that don't want to pay child support have plenty of options to get around it.

You risk the other party managing to pierce the corporate veil or filing for sanctions but a South Dakota trust might do it. IDK, IANAL. In OR you can get state attorneys to help you if you are poor. The state doesn't want to pay for your kids if someone else can. This is extra true if the child ends up in state care. I should clarify that I have seen someone truly successful in evading child support, but they were not a US citizen and the were not in the same country as the mother. Shooting myself in the head would also be successful, but I'm not going to do it.

[former player]

A significant proportion of men will use custody issues as a way out of paying child support or paying the amount of child support they should.  They threaten to claim custody when they don't really want it, they tie the woman up in endless court proceedings (often they can afford this and she can't because of the impact of child care on earnings), they pay erratically and just enough below what they owe to make going back to court not worth it.  They use the courts prevent the woman from moving to a better economic or social support system.   And that's before the threats of violence to the woman and/or children - I'll beat you up/kill you if you name me as the father or claim child support. 

I'm not even including the tactics of moving to another state, leaving the country, not leaving an address for service, etc. etc.  And even that's supposing that the woman has contact details for the father (rapists don't always leave these) or wasn't a victim of incest or paedophilia, when naming the father puts her at great personal risk.

Yeah, yeah, not all men, you wouldn't do any of that.  We've heard it all.  But too many men, too much of the time.

[PKFFW]

You risk the other party managing to pierce the corporate veil or filing for sanctions but a South Dakota trust might do it. IDK, IANAL. In OR you can get state attorneys to help you if you are poor. The state doesn't want to pay for your kids if someone else can. This is extra true if the child ends up in state care. I should clarify that I have seen someone truly successful in evading child support, but they were not a US citizen and the were not in the same country as the mother. Shooting myself in the head would also be successful, but I'm not going to do it.

Fine, I withdraw the comment.  Obviously there is no way to avoid child support if you are a USA citizen and as such abortion affects men just as much as women.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.

[former player]

At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.

Republicans don't care.  They could have done that any time these last 50 years, and added in maternity (and paternity) leave, maternity health care past 8 weeks and made sacking someone for being pregnant or rearing a child unlawful.  Don't hold your breath on them doing any of it now.

I'm happy for Democrats to improve requirements to child care but that should be for all children.   Republicans might not be aware just how much it costs to look after a severely disabled child and requiring Republican voters to live at poverty levels in order to pay the full costs would be an eye-opener.

[nereo]

At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.

I’m lukewarm on making stricter child support laws, mostly because there are many who can’t pay them, and forcing them to sets up insurmountable barriers and reinforces the idea of a financial penalty for sex.  I strongly support paid maternity and paternity leave and free and available daycare. In the US we still tell parents they are largely on their own til the kid hits at least kindergarten.

[former player]

At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.

I’m lukewarm on making stricter child support laws, mostly because there are many who can’t pay them, and forcing them to sets up insurmountable barriers and reinforces the idea of a financial penalty for sex.  I strongly support paid maternity and paternity leave and free and available daycare. In the US we still tell parents they are largely on their own til the kid hits at least kindergarten.

It's a choice, either the parents (both male and female) pay for the child's upbringing or the government does.  One or the other.  The problem with saying stricter child care laws affect the many who can't pay them is that it almost always men who get away with not paying on the grounds of poverty but the women who look after those children may be just as poor or even poorer but still have to find a way to pay.  Letting men off paying sounds nice but the problem doesn't go away, the women who end up paying, in ways that are mostly ignored by men.

[PeteD01]

At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.

That sounds reasonable only until one considers the nature of modern prenatal care. A lot of prenatal care involves diagnosing conditions in which termination of pregnancy is the treatment of choice.
An abortion ban immediately makes such prenatal care pointless and I would consider it unlikely that insurance companies would cover tests and procedures that, by law, cannot affect treatment decisions. Paying for such money wasting care is also unfair to the other insured.
Finding competent Ob/Gyn practitioners willing to work within such constraints would also be difficult, I suppose.
And that is why abortion bans are first and foremost a denial of healthcare to pregnant patients lacking the means to obtain care on their own dime and wherever they want.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.

Republicans don't care.  They could have done that any time these last 50 years, and added in maternity (and paternity) leave, maternity health care past 8 weeks and made sacking someone for being pregnant or rearing a child unlawful.  Don't hold your breath on them doing any of it now.

I'm happy for Democrats to improve requirements to child care but that should be for all children.   Republicans might not be aware just how much it costs to look after a severely disabled child and requiring Republican voters to live at poverty levels in order to pay the full costs would be an eye-opener.

Many Republican politicians may not care. All of them may not. Who knows. The thing is, despite what the echo chamber characteristics of this conversation may convince liberals here, there are numerous everyday conservatives who do care. The Democrats should push it because it's a win, win, right? It's the right thing to do to better enforce men paying for their half of the part in the process. Either the Republicans universally or in decent enough numbers support it, in which case your assessment is wrong, or they don't, and the ones that don't are shown for their hypocrisy. After all, it's not asking for the government to do something, forcing people to give who had nothing to do with it and all those taking points. It's the person directly responsible paying for it. If this was pushed by the Democrats and Republicans balked, it would alienate or at least put something in the minds of some conservatives that their leaders aren't walking the walk, imo. I think it's a good angle to take.

ETA or maybe it does nothing. Bills often go nowhere. This is at least a unique thing to try that would be good if passed.

[GuitarStv]

At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.

Republicans don't care.  They could have done that any time these last 50 years, and added in maternity (and paternity) leave, maternity health care past 8 weeks and made sacking someone for being pregnant or rearing a child unlawful.  Don't hold your breath on them doing any of it now.

I'm happy for Democrats to improve requirements to child care but that should be for all children.   Republicans might not be aware just how much it costs to look after a severely disabled child and requiring Republican voters to live at poverty levels in order to pay the full costs would be an eye-opener.

Many Republican politicians may not care. All of them may not. Who knows. The thing is, despite what the echo chamber characteristics of this conversation may convince liberals here, there are numerous everyday conservatives who do care. The Democrats should push it because it's a win, win, right? It's the right thing to do to better enforce men paying for their half of the part in the process. Either the Republicans universally or in decent enough numbers support it, in which case your assessment is wrong, or they don't, and the ones that don't are shown for their hypocrisy. After all, it's not asking for the government to do something, forcing people to give who had nothing to do with it and all those taking points. It's the person directly responsible paying for it. If this was pushed by the Democrats and Republicans balked, it would alienate or at least put something in the minds of some conservatives that their leaders aren't walking the walk, imo. I think it's a good angle to take.

ETA or maybe it does nothing. Bills often go nowhere. This is at least a unique thing to try that would be good if passed.

Republican leaders haven't been walking the walk for decades now, and their base hasn't lost faith with them.  They just use alternate reality media to change the world that the base is aware of.  It's really tough for me to believe that getting men to pay child support is going to be the thing that changes that.

Don't get me wrong.  It's a sensible policy idea and I think Democrats should push for it.

[JLee]

It is certainly easy to get around them if you have sufficient desire. ORS 25.247 says that if I go to prison I don't have to pay child support (unless I have a pile of money somewhere). I, personally, don't think that's really a motivation for most people to go to prison. Short of that I could not pay my child support and immediately have my wages and/or bank accounts garnished, never see another tax refund, have my US passport revoked, and probably lose my drivers license. I guess that some people are willing to live like that, I'm not.

Also, just for the record, I'm happy to pay to support my kids.

Firstly, I'm glad you're happy to pay to support your kids.

You could also use corporate trusts and other such structures to in effect earn zero and own nothing than can be taken.  You could use legal challenges until the other party couldn't afford to fight any more.  You could manipulate/intimidate/coerce the other party into aborting the fetus (even if illegal).  That's just three options I can think of, I'm sure there are others.

I admit my wording was not really precise as the above would certainly be "playing by the rules" (except accessing an abortion if it is illegal).  I simply meant that those that don't want to pay child support have plenty of options to get around it.

One could also have a one night stand and disappear.

[jrhampt]

Let's not forget that part II of build back better includes lots of stuff related to childcare and family support and it has no support from Republicans.  That stuff will never pass.  They have had MANY opportunities to support families and parents and continue to choose not to do it.

[partgypsy]

Here's one encouraging thing. While the VA does not provide abortion services or counseling, it does provide contraceptive care to female veterans. The VA has come out saying they will continue to provide those services, because the VA is a federal entity and not a state entity. In other words, even if you are in a state that has outlawed contraceptives, female veterans contraception care will not be interrupted.  (Now if only all of us had access to same level of care).

[sixwings]

At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.

I’m lukewarm on making stricter child support laws, mostly because there are many who can’t pay them, and forcing them to sets up insurmountable barriers and reinforces the idea of a financial penalty for sex.  I strongly support paid maternity and paternity leave and free and available daycare. In the US we still tell parents they are largely on their own til the kid hits at least kindergarten.

hmmm there's a lot of penalties for sex if you're a woman, being forced to carry to term is a massive penalty that includes financial penalties. Setting up some financial penalties for men so it's harder to get off the hook while reducing the financial penalty for women is fine. But that kind of legislation would be horribly unpopular as most men don't want any consequences for sex, they are fine with women assuming all the risk, so that kind of legislation isn't going to go anywhere.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.

That sounds reasonable only until one considers the nature of modern prenatal care. A lot of prenatal care involves diagnosing conditions in which termination of pregnancy is the treatment of choice.
An abortion ban immediately makes such prenatal care pointless and I would consider it unlikely that insurance companies would cover tests and procedures that, by law, cannot affect treatment decisions. Paying for such money wasting care is also unfair to the other insured.
Finding competent Ob/Gyn practitioners willing to work within such constraints would also be difficult, I suppose.
And that is why abortion bans are first and foremost a denial of healthcare to pregnant patients lacking the means to obtain care on their own dime and wherever they want.

I'll preface this with I am not a doctor.

Sure some prenatal conditions have abortion as a recommendation. Some can be treated, though. Some have abortion offered but there are treatments that could be used. I have a relative whose situation fit that bill. She didn't abort, requested treatment, and their baby is doing well.

The point being, sure, some prenatal care recommends abortions. Not all does though. Insurance companies may fight paying for prenatal care since there can't be abortions. They pay for things now, though. Don't know why they'd do worse then they are now. If it's a viable prenatal treatment and they pay for it now, not sure why they'd not without abortions. If nothing changes with insurance, I'm not sure how that'd affect the issue of making men pay for prenatal support. There would be challenges like what care to do for different things, and that would have to be managed. For other things like paying for ending ectopic pregnancies, if the worst care situations come to pass where that's banned as well, that's a separate issue. Payment wouldn't be the issue.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.

Republicans don't care.  They could have done that any time these last 50 years, and added in maternity (and paternity) leave, maternity health care past 8 weeks and made sacking someone for being pregnant or rearing a child unlawful.  Don't hold your breath on them doing any of it now.

I'm happy for Democrats to improve requirements to child care but that should be for all children.   Republicans might not be aware just how much it costs to look after a severely disabled child and requiring Republican voters to live at poverty levels in order to pay the full costs would be an eye-opener.

Many Republican politicians may not care. All of them may not. Who knows. The thing is, despite what the echo chamber characteristics of this conversation may convince liberals here, there are numerous everyday conservatives who do care. The Democrats should push it because it's a win, win, right? It's the right thing to do to better enforce men paying for their half of the part in the process. Either the Republicans universally or in decent enough numbers support it, in which case your assessment is wrong, or they don't, and the ones that don't are shown for their hypocrisy. After all, it's not asking for the government to do something, forcing people to give who had nothing to do with it and all those taking points. It's the person directly responsible paying for it. If this was pushed by the Democrats and Republicans balked, it would alienate or at least put something in the minds of some conservatives that their leaders aren't walking the walk, imo. I think it's a good angle to take.

ETA or maybe it does nothing. Bills often go nowhere. This is at least a unique thing to try that would be good if passed.

Republican leaders haven't been walking the walk for decades now, and their base hasn't lost faith with them.  They just use alternate reality media to change the world that the base is aware of.  It's really tough for me to believe that getting men to pay child support is going to be the thing that changes that.

Don't get me wrong.  It's a sensible policy idea and I think Democrats should push for it.

Maybe it would do nothing. Even if it's "probably it would do nothing" I'd  still push it. Democrats pushing to federally legalize abortion is nothing surprising or novel. Pushing to say, ok, you want this, this is what comes with it is at least to me worth a shot.

[ministashy]

Republican leaders haven't been walking the walk for decades now, and their base hasn't lost faith with them.  They just use alternate reality media to change the world that the base is aware of.  It's really tough for me to believe that getting men to pay child support is going to be the thing that changes that.

Don't get me wrong.  It's a sensible policy idea and I think Democrats should push for it.

Maybe it would do nothing. Even if it's "probably it would do nothing" I'd  still push it. Democrats pushing to federally legalize abortion is nothing surprising or novel. Pushing to say, ok, you want this, this is what comes with it is at least to me worth a shot.

I think you're vastly underestimating Republican voters' tolerance for hypocrisy.  They've never cared before when their elected officials squashed every attempt to expand healthcare or other protections for women and children.  Why should they care now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned?

[PeteD01]

At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.

That sounds reasonable only until one considers the nature of modern prenatal care. A lot of prenatal care involves diagnosing conditions in which termination of pregnancy is the treatment of choice.
An abortion ban immediately makes such prenatal care pointless and I would consider it unlikely that insurance companies would cover tests and procedures that, by law, cannot affect treatment decisions. Paying for such money wasting care is also unfair to the other insured.
Finding competent Ob/Gyn practitioners willing to work within such constraints would also be difficult, I suppose.
And that is why abortion bans are first and foremost a denial of healthcare to pregnant patients lacking the means to obtain care on their own dime and wherever they want.

I'll preface this with I am not a doctor.

Sure some prenatal conditions have abortion as a recommendation. Some can be treated, though. Some have abortion offered but there are treatments that could be used. I have a relative whose situation fit that bill. She didn't abort, requested treatment, and their baby is doing well.

The point being, sure, some prenatal care recommends abortions. Not all does though. Insurance companies may fight paying for prenatal care since there can't be abortions. They pay for things now, though. Don't know why they'd do worse then they are now. If it's a viable prenatal treatment and they pay for it now, not sure why they'd not without abortions. If nothing changes with insurance, I'm not sure how that'd affect the issue of making men pay for prenatal support. There would be challenges like what care to do for different things, and that would have to be managed. For other things like paying for ending ectopic pregnancies, if the worst care situations come to pass where that's banned as well, that's a separate issue. Payment wouldn't be the issue.

There are quite a few indications for invasive procedures, like amniocentesis if fetal abnormalities are suspected, that are only valid if abortion is an option. There is no medical justification for diagnostic procedures that carry risks including fetal demise if there is no treatment option. In fact, fetal demise following such a procedure might be construed as abortion if performed only "just to know".
Practically, a good part of modern prenatal care and high risk pregnancy care cannot be provided under abortion bans and such services will become unavailable in affected areas rather soon because of the inevitable provider harrassment abortion bans result in (and failure to get reimbursed is only the tip of the iceberg).
The most likely outcome of this is that reproductive health services will further wither away or be driven underground while surveillance of pregnancy is increasingly a matter of law enforcement in the affected states.

[bacchi]

The most likely outcome of this is that reproductive health services will further wither away or be driven underground while surveillance of pregnancy is increasingly a matter of law enforcement in the affected states.

Particularly with the new snitch laws.

[PeteD01]

The most likely outcome of this is that reproductive health services will further wither away or be driven underground while surveillance of pregnancy is increasingly a matter of law enforcement in the affected states.

Particularly with the new snitch laws.

And because anti-abortionists, GOP politicians and some radical SCOTUS judges are completely ignorant of what is coming down the pipeline, they are unable to see how the 13th and 14th Amendments cover the right to noncoercive reproductive care including abortion just fine.

[PDXTabs]

You risk the other party managing to pierce the corporate veil or filing for sanctions but a South Dakota trust might do it. IDK, IANAL. In OR you can get state attorneys to help you if you are poor. The state doesn't want to pay for your kids if someone else can. This is extra true if the child ends up in state care. I should clarify that I have seen someone truly successful in evading child support, but they were not a US citizen and the were not in the same country as the mother. Shooting myself in the head would also be successful, but I'm not going to do it.

Fine, I withdraw the comment.  Obviously there is no way to avoid child support if you are a USA citizen and as such abortion affects men just as much as women.

I wouldn't go that far and nothing I wrote was meant to suggest that. My worst case for poor access to abortion is watching my daughter die and her worst case is dying. Philosophy aside I think that's worse for her than me. I've just never met a single man in the USA who thinks that they can get another US resident pregnant and there will be no financial consequences.

[bacchi]

This is a sign of things to come.

A school in NC required girls to wear a skirt because girls are a "fragile vessel." The school lost but here's a dissenting opinion,

To a great many people, dress codes represent an ideal of chivalry that is not patronizing to women, but appreciative and respectful of them.

See? We're not trying to control women. We're just being respectful by controlling their clothing choices! </s>

The school tried to claim that, though it received public funding, it was a charter school and thus not a state actor. The full 4th Circuit dismissed that claim.

The concerning part? It was 10-6.

Given the Bremerton decision today, we can expect to see more of these type of cases percolate, eventually, to the SC.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.

That sounds reasonable only until one considers the nature of modern prenatal care. A lot of prenatal care involves diagnosing conditions in which termination of pregnancy is the treatment of choice.
An abortion ban immediately makes such prenatal care pointless and I would consider it unlikely that insurance companies would cover tests and procedures that, by law, cannot affect treatment decisions. Paying for such money wasting care is also unfair to the other insured.
Finding competent Ob/Gyn practitioners willing to work within such constraints would also be difficult, I suppose.
And that is why abortion bans are first and foremost a denial of healthcare to pregnant patients lacking the means to obtain care on their own dime and wherever they want.

I'll preface this with I am not a doctor.

Sure some prenatal conditions have abortion as a recommendation. Some can be treated, though. Some have abortion offered but there are treatments that could be used. I have a relative whose situation fit that bill. She didn't abort, requested treatment, and their baby is doing well.

The point being, sure, some prenatal care recommends abortions. Not all does though. Insurance companies may fight paying for prenatal care since there can't be abortions. They pay for things now, though. Don't know why they'd do worse then they are now. If it's a viable prenatal treatment and they pay for it now, not sure why they'd not without abortions. If nothing changes with insurance, I'm not sure how that'd affect the issue of making men pay for prenatal support. There would be challenges like what care to do for different things, and that would have to be managed. For other things like paying for ending ectopic pregnancies, if the worst care situations come to pass where that's banned as well, that's a separate issue. Payment wouldn't be the issue.

There are quite a few indications for invasive procedures, like amniocentesis if fetal abnormalities are suspected, that are only valid if abortion is an option. There is no medical justification for diagnostic procedures that carry risks including fetal demise if there is no treatment option. In fact, fetal demise following such a procedure might be construed as abortion if performed only "just to know".
Practically, a good part of modern prenatal care and high risk pregnancy care cannot be provided under abortion bans and such services will become unavailable in affected areas rather soon because of the inevitable provider harrassment abortion bans result in (and failure to get reimbursed is only the tip of the iceberg).
The most likely outcome of this is that reproductive health services will further wither away or be driven underground while surveillance of pregnancy is increasingly a matter of law enforcement in the affected states.

You clearly know more about the technical parts prenatal care than I do, but again I don't see how that would affect a law that would put men on the hook for at least part of any bills that apply for prenatal care.

[PeteD01]

At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.

That sounds reasonable only until one considers the nature of modern prenatal care. A lot of prenatal care involves diagnosing conditions in which termination of pregnancy is the treatment of choice.
An abortion ban immediately makes such prenatal care pointless and I would consider it unlikely that insurance companies would cover tests and procedures that, by law, cannot affect treatment decisions. Paying for such money wasting care is also unfair to the other insured.
Finding competent Ob/Gyn practitioners willing to work within such constraints would also be difficult, I suppose.
And that is why abortion bans are first and foremost a denial of healthcare to pregnant patients lacking the means to obtain care on their own dime and wherever they want.

I'll preface this with I am not a doctor.

Sure some prenatal conditions have abortion as a recommendation. Some can be treated, though. Some have abortion offered but there are treatments that could be used. I have a relative whose situation fit that bill. She didn't abort, requested treatment, and their baby is doing well.

The point being, sure, some prenatal care recommends abortions. Not all does though. Insurance companies may fight paying for prenatal care since there can't be abortions. They pay for things now, though. Don't know why they'd do worse then they are now. If it's a viable prenatal treatment and they pay for it now, not sure why they'd not without abortions. If nothing changes with insurance, I'm not sure how that'd affect the issue of making men pay for prenatal support. There would be challenges like what care to do for different things, and that would have to be managed. For other things like paying for ending ectopic pregnancies, if the worst care situations come to pass where that's banned as well, that's a separate issue. Payment wouldn't be the issue.

There are quite a few indications for invasive procedures, like amniocentesis if fetal abnormalities are suspected, that are only valid if abortion is an option. There is no medical justification for diagnostic procedures that carry risks including fetal demise if there is no treatment option. In fact, fetal demise following such a procedure might be construed as abortion if performed only "just to know".
Practically, a good part of modern prenatal care and high risk pregnancy care cannot be provided under abortion bans and such services will become unavailable in affected areas rather soon because of the inevitable provider harrassment abortion bans result in (and failure to get reimbursed is only the tip of the iceberg).
The most likely outcome of this is that reproductive health services will further wither away or be driven underground while surveillance of pregnancy is increasingly a matter of law enforcement in the affected states.

You clearly know more about the technical parts prenatal care than I do, but again I don't see how that would affect a law that would put men on the hook for at least part of any bills that apply for prenatal care.

Prenatal care would be really cheap because little is going to be provided in certain states going forward. So men there have little to worry about bills from that especially if care is obtained under the radar out of state, but that discission is somewhat off topic.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

At the very least, stricter laws to enforce child support sounds like a no brainer and should get bipartisan support. I'd even add something about prenatal care. This is an angle I think democrats should push strongly. It's very reasonable, should get bipartisan support, and if it does, great. Republicans who are truly supportive of their perspective should be down with it. If they push back, it would be, imo, very bad optics for them.

That sounds reasonable only until one considers the nature of modern prenatal care. A lot of prenatal care involves diagnosing conditions in which termination of pregnancy is the treatment of choice.
An abortion ban immediately makes such prenatal care pointless and I would consider it unlikely that insurance companies would cover tests and procedures that, by law, cannot affect treatment decisions. Paying for such money wasting care is also unfair to the other insured.
Finding competent Ob/Gyn practitioners willing to work within such constraints would also be difficult, I suppose.
And that is why abortion bans are first and foremost a denial of healthcare to pregnant patients lacking the means to obtain care on their own dime and wherever they want.

I'll preface this with I am not a doctor.

Sure some prenatal conditions have abortion as a recommendation. Some can be treated, though. Some have abortion offered but there are treatments that could be used. I have a relative whose situation fit that bill. She didn't abort, requested treatment, and their baby is doing well.

The point being, sure, some prenatal care recommends abortions. Not all does though. Insurance companies may fight paying for prenatal care since there can't be abortions. They pay for things now, though. Don't know why they'd do worse then they are now. If it's a viable prenatal treatment and they pay for it now, not sure why they'd not without abortions. If nothing changes with insurance, I'm not sure how that'd affect the issue of making men pay for prenatal support. There would be challenges like what care to do for different things, and that would have to be managed. For other things like paying for ending ectopic pregnancies, if the worst care situations come to pass where that's banned as well, that's a separate issue. Payment wouldn't be the issue.

There are quite a few indications for invasive procedures, like amniocentesis if fetal abnormalities are suspected, that are only valid if abortion is an option. There is no medical justification for diagnostic procedures that carry risks including fetal demise if there is no treatment option. In fact, fetal demise following such a procedure might be construed as abortion if performed only "just to know".
Practically, a good part of modern prenatal care and high risk pregnancy care cannot be provided under abortion bans and such services will become unavailable in affected areas rather soon because of the inevitable provider harrassment abortion bans result in (and failure to get reimbursed is only the tip of the iceberg).
The most likely outcome of this is that reproductive health services will further wither away or be driven underground while surveillance of pregnancy is increasingly a matter of law enforcement in the affected states.

You clearly know more about the technical parts prenatal care than I do, but again I don't see how that would affect a law that would put men on the hook for at least part of any bills that apply for prenatal care.

Prenatal care would be really cheap because little is going to be provided in certain states going forward. So men there have little to worry about bills from that especially if care is obtained under the radar out of state, but that discission is somewhat off topic.

I was thinking more of a check for support beyond just medical care anyways. Child support is not exclusively or even a majority, usually, about helping out if the kid breaks an arm, right. I'm thinking a check to pay for general expenses pre natal as if the child was born. It would, though, be in part for prenatal care which women will still get..we had general expenses with my wife even though we declined some specific tests because we knew we wouldn't abort  (seemingly a mini case study of what we're discussing). There's also birth costs and so on in addition to other random things. I'm not sure what the nuts and bolts would look like, but I feel like there would still be plenty, regardless of the law, for men to pay for before and including birth.

ETA: for clarification, these were tests for uncorrectable abnormalities later in pregnancy, not early stage issues like ectopic that would result in completely non viable pregnancies with significant risk to the life of DW.

[Michael in ABQ]

Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)

[former player]

Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)

The USA has been touting its moral leadership of the world order since 1945.  You don't get to duck out of that just because you don't like being called out on your fuck-ups.

[GuitarStv]

Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)

Living in America's hat, it's surprising how much the internal US politics ends up spilling over into our country.

Over the years our right wing Conservative party has picked up a lot of the radicalization techniques pioneered by the Republicans.  Shit US gun control directly translates into more guns on Canadian streets.  US anti-vaxx/covid restriction money funded the trucker convoy that disrupted life in our country earlier this year.  Many of our clinics are gearing up to help American women get access to abortions.

US politics impact Canada very deeply, so we tend to keep an eye on it.

[Just Joe]

Not since the forming of the union that I'm aware of. But the Irish fought a war and then later there were the troubles. The BBC has a very good, long, depressing series on the troubles that is available for free on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3scz1KD9eE

Thank you this link. SO much history was simply not taught in my red state public school. I'm still finding new topics several decades later. 

[nereo]

Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)

As a US citizen that spent over a decade living abroad, it's eye opening how constantly the US pushes its views and policies onto other countries (directly and indirectly), even ones which are allies. We do it through our foreign policy initiatives, trade policy, through military campaigns, and through 'spillover' (see GuitarStv's response). Ironically the US in general has very little tolerance for other nations pushing their views in similar ways.

All the attention is precisely because such monumental changes can have direct and measurable impacts on citizens elsewhere.

[sixwings]

Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)

Living in America's hat, it's surprising how much the internal US politics ends up spilling over into our country.

Over the years our right wing Conservative party has picked up a lot of the radicalization techniques pioneered by the Republicans.  Shit US gun control directly translates into more guns on Canadian streets.  US anti-vaxx/covid restriction money funded the trucker convoy that disrupted life in our country earlier this year.  Many of our clinics are gearing up to help American women get access to abortions.

US politics impact Canada very deeply, so we tend to keep an eye on it.

It's similar to being in an apartmnet and being able to listen to the downstairs neighbours talk about lighting their unit on fire.

[RetiredAt63]

Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)

As a US citizen that spent over a decade living abroad, it's eye opening how constantly the US pushes its views and policies onto other countries (directly and indirectly), even ones which are allies. We do it through our foreign policy initiatives, trade policy, through military campaigns, and through 'spillover' (see GuitarStv's response). Ironically the US in general has very little tolerance for other nations pushing their views in similar ways.

All the attention is precisely because such monumental changes can have direct and measurable impacts on citizens elsewhere.

Elephants are big and not always careful where they put their feet.

The US was prepared to meddle with Quebec independence.  We don't trust American politicians to mind their own business.  Plus there is lots of American right-wing private money coming into Canada.  They spent it in the US and it worked, now we are the easy neighbouring target.

You know all that shining beacon of liberty and democracy propaganda that Americans spew?   We watch like hawks to see what nonsense and crap is coming our way.  Margaret Atwood didn't get the Hand-maiden's tale out of standard Canadian attitudes.

[sailinlight]

Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)

As a US citizen that spent over a decade living abroad, it's eye opening how constantly the US pushes its views and policies onto other countries (directly and indirectly), even ones which are allies. We do it through our foreign policy initiatives, trade policy, through military campaigns, and through 'spillover' (see GuitarStv's response). Ironically the US in general has very little tolerance for other nations pushing their views in similar ways.

All the attention is precisely because such monumental changes can have direct and measurable impacts on citizens elsewhere.

Elephants are big and not always careful where they put their feet.

The US was prepared to meddle with Quebec independence.  We don't trust American politicians to mind their own business.  Plus there is lots of American right-wing private money coming into Canada.  They spent it in the US and it worked, now we are the easy neighbouring target.

You know all that shining beacon of liberty and democracy propaganda that Americans spew?   We watch like hawks to see what nonsense and crap is coming our way.  Margaret Atwood didn't get the Hand-maiden's tale out of standard Canadian attitudes.

But does anyone outside the US actually understand what the ruling means? Do provinces make their own abortion laws in Canada, or is it regulated by the national government?

[Just Joe]

I'm happy for Democrats to improve requirements to child care but that should be for all children.   Republicans might not be aware just how much it costs to look after a severely disabled child and requiring Republican voters to live at poverty levels in order to pay the full costs would be an eye-opener.

Any more I'm convinced all this is intentional on the GOP's part. Limit people's resources and earning potential. Keep the lowest rungs of society stocked with people desperate enough to do anything to make a living at poverty level wages. Meanwhile companies make solid profits.

No I don't have any proof but everything they do seems to reinforce these situations. Limited or no healthcare/childcare/housing/abortions. Limited oversight on high interest credit and other predatory business practices. Uneven school funding based on neighborhood property values instead of state wide equal public school funding. Keep the electorate scared, too busy to think, upset about the liberals, reinforce antique religious beliefs, keep people tied to their employers for insurance and their cars with few alternatives. Do as I say, not as I do.

[RetiredAt63]

Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)

As a US citizen that spent over a decade living abroad, it's eye opening how constantly the US pushes its views and policies onto other countries (directly and indirectly), even ones which are allies. We do it through our foreign policy initiatives, trade policy, through military campaigns, and through 'spillover' (see GuitarStv's response). Ironically the US in general has very little tolerance for other nations pushing their views in similar ways.

All the attention is precisely because such monumental changes can have direct and measurable impacts on citizens elsewhere.

Elephants are big and not always careful where they put their feet.

The US was prepared to meddle with Quebec independence.  We don't trust American politicians to mind their own business.  Plus there is lots of American right-wing private money coming into Canada.  They spent it in the US and it worked, now we are the easy neighbouring target.

You know all that shining beacon of liberty and democracy propaganda that Americans spew?   We watch like hawks to see what nonsense and crap is coming our way.  Margaret Atwood didn't get the Hand-maiden's tale out of standard Canadian attitudes.

But does anyone outside the US actually understand what the ruling means? Do provinces make their own abortion laws in Canada, or is it regulated by the national government?

I asked about the American law on one of these threads.  In Canada the Federal government is in charge of criminal law and the provinces are in charge of civil law.  Abortion was de-criminalized a good while ago - if you want to know our history, look up Henry Morgentaler. 

[PDXTabs]

Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)

Things that happen in the USA absolutely impact other countries, especially countries that share a border like Canada and Mexico. As to not being able to contribute to US politics, is that true? I don't believe that there is any law preventing foreign nationals living wherever from contributing to 527s.

[GuitarStv]

Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)

As a US citizen that spent over a decade living abroad, it's eye opening how constantly the US pushes its views and policies onto other countries (directly and indirectly), even ones which are allies. We do it through our foreign policy initiatives, trade policy, through military campaigns, and through 'spillover' (see GuitarStv's response). Ironically the US in general has very little tolerance for other nations pushing their views in similar ways.

All the attention is precisely because such monumental changes can have direct and measurable impacts on citizens elsewhere.

Elephants are big and not always careful where they put their feet.

The US was prepared to meddle with Quebec independence.  We don't trust American politicians to mind their own business.  Plus there is lots of American right-wing private money coming into Canada.  They spent it in the US and it worked, now we are the easy neighbouring target.

You know all that shining beacon of liberty and democracy propaganda that Americans spew?   We watch like hawks to see what nonsense and crap is coming our way.  Margaret Atwood didn't get the Hand-maiden's tale out of standard Canadian attitudes.

But does anyone outside the US actually understand what the ruling means? Do provinces make their own abortion laws in Canada, or is it regulated by the national government?

I asked about the American law on one of these threads.  In Canada the Federal government is in charge of criminal law and the provinces are in charge of civil law.  Abortion was de-criminalized a good while ago - if you want to know our history, look up Henry Morgentaler.

Abortion is decriminalized in Canada, but not recognized as a right.  That's why when Conservatives start talking about opening up the abortion 'debate' people get riled up.

[Davnasty]

Those pointing out that US laws have effects outside the US are absolutely right, but let's not miss the irony of someone who is in favor of legislating women's healthcare choices asking why anyone would care about what other people do.

What the US does with our women is none of y'all's business /s

[HPstache]

Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)

As a US citizen that spent over a decade living abroad, it's eye opening how constantly the US pushes its views and policies onto other countries (directly and indirectly), even ones which are allies. We do it through our foreign policy initiatives, trade policy, through military campaigns, and through 'spillover' (see GuitarStv's response). Ironically the US in general has very little tolerance for other nations pushing their views in similar ways.

All the attention is precisely because such monumental changes can have direct and measurable impacts on citizens elsewhere.

Elephants are big and not always careful where they put their feet.

The US was prepared to meddle with Quebec independence.  We don't trust American politicians to mind their own business.  Plus there is lots of American right-wing private money coming into Canada.  They spent it in the US and it worked, now we are the easy neighbouring target.

You know all that shining beacon of liberty and democracy propaganda that Americans spew?   We watch like hawks to see what nonsense and crap is coming our way.  Margaret Atwood didn't get the Hand-maiden's tale out of standard Canadian attitudes.

But does anyone outside the US actually understand what the ruling means? Do provinces make their own abortion laws in Canada, or is it regulated by the national government?

I asked about the American law on one of these threads.  In Canada the Federal government is in charge of criminal law and the provinces are in charge of civil law.  Abortion was de-criminalized a good while ago - if you want to know our history, look up Henry Morgentaler.

Abortion is decriminalized in Canada, but not recognized as a right.  That's why when Conservatives start talking about opening up the abortion 'debate' people get riled up.

That is actually very surprising

[Michael in ABQ]

Those pointing out that US laws have effects outside the US are absolutely right, but let's not miss the irony of someone who is in favor of legislating women's healthcare choices asking why anyone would care about what other people do.

What the US does with our women is none of y'all's business /s

I care that assisted suicide is legal in the Netherlands (I'm opposed to it). But I don't spend hours on Dutch message boards trying to change people's minds. Or in this case, yell into an echo chamber.

[RetiredAt63]

Just curious why so many outside the US care so much about our laws, politics, court rulings, etc.? I see a lot of non-US citizens (and non-US residents) expending a lot of time and mental energy on things that have zero effect on them - and that they have zero ability to impact (i.e. voting, donating to rival candidates, etc.)

As a US citizen that spent over a decade living abroad, it's eye opening how constantly the US pushes its views and policies onto other countries (directly and indirectly), even ones which are allies. We do it through our foreign policy initiatives, trade policy, through military campaigns, and through 'spillover' (see GuitarStv's response). Ironically the US in general has very little tolerance for other nations pushing their views in similar ways.

All the attention is precisely because such monumental changes can have direct and measurable impacts on citizens elsewhere.

Elephants are big and not always careful where they put their feet.

The US was prepared to meddle with Quebec independence.  We don't trust American politicians to mind their own business.  Plus there is lots of American right-wing private money coming into Canada.  They spent it in the US and it worked, now we are the easy neighbouring target.

You know all that shining beacon of liberty and democracy propaganda that Americans spew?   We watch like hawks to see what nonsense and crap is coming our way.  Margaret Atwood didn't get the Hand-maiden's tale out of standard Canadian attitudes.

But does anyone outside the US actually understand what the ruling means? Do provinces make their own abortion laws in Canada, or is it regulated by the national government?

I asked about the American law on one of these threads.  In Canada the Federal government is in charge of criminal law and the provinces are in charge of civil law.  Abortion was de-criminalized a good while ago - if you want to know our history, look up Henry Morgentaler.

Abortion is decriminalized in Canada, but not recognized as a right.  That's why when Conservatives start talking about opening up the abortion 'debate' people get riled up.

Exactly.  Although it is solid enough that Harper tried to keep it down in his caucus.

[nereo]

Those pointing out that US laws have effects outside the US are absolutely right, but let's not miss the irony of someone who is in favor of legislating women's healthcare choices asking why anyone would care about what other people do.

What the US does with our women is none of y'all's business /s

I care that assisted suicide is legal in the Netherlands (I'm opposed to it). But I don't spend hours on Dutch message boards trying to change people's minds. Or in this case, yell into an echo chamber.

I haven’t encountered the Dutch trying to push their culture onto Americans the way we frequently do throughout Europe.

I also find it odd that you care but won’t engage with someone because they are Dutch, but you are quite active when they are American. Why is it ok to limit other’s choices only when they are American? I don’t understand the logic there…

[RetiredAt63]

Those pointing out that US laws have effects outside the US are absolutely right, but let's not miss the irony of someone who is in favor of legislating women's healthcare choices asking why anyone would care about what other people do.

What the US does with our women is none of y'all's business /s

I care that assisted suicide is legal in the Netherlands (I'm opposed to it). But I don't spend hours on Dutch message boards trying to change people's minds. Or in this case, yell into an echo chamber.

I haven’t encountered the Dutch trying to push their culture onto Americans the way we frequently do throughout Europe.

I also find it odd that you care but won’t engage with someone because they are Dutch, but you are quite active when they are American. Why is it ok to limit other’s choices only when they are American? I don’t understand the logic there…

Hmm, women (or at least some women) care when women elsewhere are subjugated.  Because we care about our sisters, and we also know that if we are not careful we could be next.  I am part of a group that is heavily involved in education for women in countries where they have difficulty getting an education.  Right now we are particularly involved in Afghanistan.  Hmm, another country where women were doing not too badly until recently.

Or I suppose I could quote John Donne. 

No man is an island,
Entire of itself;
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less,
As well as if a promontory were:
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were.
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.

Or better still

No man one is an island,
Entire of itself;
Every man one is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less,
As well as if a promontory were:
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were.
Any man'sperson's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in man humankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.

Since technically man includes woman, but really people read man and think male.

[Davnasty]

Those pointing out that US laws have effects outside the US are absolutely right, but let's not miss the irony of someone who is in favor of legislating women's healthcare choices asking why anyone would care about what other people do.

What the US does with our women is none of y'all's business /s

I care that assisted suicide is legal in the Netherlands (I'm opposed to it). But I don't spend hours on Dutch message boards trying to change people's minds. Or in this case, yell into an echo chamber.

Ok, I can follow that reasoning. But in that case, why are borders/nationality relevant. In some instances laws affect you directly so country matters, because self interest, but laws regarding abortion and assisted suicide are about telling someone else what to do. Why does it matter where someone is from if you want to force your morality on them?