SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Torie]

Kavanaugh, the 5th vote to overturn Roe, opines in a concurrence in victim that the right to travel protects women traveling to other states to obtain an abortion. So at the end of the day, the practical impact of this should be limited, particularly if the number of states banning abortion entirely, as opposed to just after the first trimester, are rare.

[Torie]

On the issue of financing the right to travel for an abortion, one would hope that charities would step up to the plate, and at least for the moment, Congress through reconciliation could pass a law financing travel for an abortion on a means tested basis. Some states will allow abortion in the first trimester perhaps.

[Torie]

On the issue of financing the right to travel for an abortion, one would hope that charities would step up to the plate, and at least for the moment, Congress through reconciliation could pass a law financing travel for an abortion on a means tested basis. Some states will allow abortion in the first trimester perhaps.

What's stopping states from criminalizing abortion funding? And lol if you think bold is going to happen.

Right to travel per Kavanaugh (if the funding is to finance the travel). I am predicting nothing.

[Torie]

What a sad day for this country. I shudder to think about what's next. Will the Court overturn marriage equality? I assume that will be the next challenge, if it isn't already in the works.

Same sex relations, contraception, school integration,

And maybe the economic issues as well, social security, Medicare,


The whole new deal paradigm is at risk.

Right. I am worried contraception is what will be targeted next. Clarence Thomas essentially said in his opinion that the court should re-examine the landmark cases that established the right to contraception, right to same sex marriage and right to same sex intimacy.

This really is a frightening time.

Thomas is an outlyier on that (he hates substantive due process), and Kavanaugh's concurrence said no. I can't image a national law being passed banning 1st trimester abortions btw.

[Torie]

What a sad day for this country. I shudder to think about what's next. Will the Court overturn marriage equality? I assume that will be the next challenge, if it isn't already in the works.

Same sex relations, contraception, school integration,

And maybe the economic issues as well, social security, Medicare,


The whole new deal paradigm is at risk.

Right. I am worried contraception is what will be targeted next. Clarence Thomas essentially said in his opinion that the court should re-examine the landmark cases that established the right to contraception, right to same sex marriage and right to same sex intimacy.

This really is a frightening time.

Thomas is an outlyier on that (he hates substantive due process), and Kavanaugh's concurrence said no. I can't image a national law being passed banning 1st trimester abortions btw.

Like I said above, I give it six months max before they do it.

Biden won't veto it, and the Senate Dems won't filibuster it?  Calm down.

[Torie]

How come you ignored my comment about how American Christians are often willing to ally with unbelievers and deliberately avoid calling out their anti-Christ beliefs and behavior for political gain?

Because there's nothing he wouldn't accept to achieve theocracy. He doesn't care if we accept Christianity in our hearts because his aspiration is a world where we are made to follow its rules anyway or burn (both in real life and imaginary lava jail).

Unfortunately, I see relations between Christians and non-Christians becoming far worse and more violent as a result of this philosophy and opportunists using its believers. Americans are a people who like to decide our fate, and the Evangelicals follow a strategy of political entrenchment rather than democratic persuasion. At least some seem to think it will be fine because they can use the pretense of legitimacy to shoot everyone who protests demanding to vote for their government.

This is depressing but true. Anyone who's Christian is going to be, by default, assumed to support this decision, regardless of where their church actually stands. But there's not going to be any nuanced discussion of abortion in the coming years. We will hear the secular view and the religious fundamentalist view but not much else. Because $$$$

Your comment motivated me to look for a poll on the subject. 11% of atheists are "somewhat" pro-choice. That is my little box.


It will be interesting if this decision moves the needle on the attitudes of the public.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/05/13/which-religious-groups-members-abortion-poll

I thought the Evers comment was performance art on his part (obviously no pro life law is going to pass while he is around), but lo and behold Wisconsin has a law on the book about abortion enacted in 1849. Not sure what it says.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2022/06/24/abortion-illegal-wisconsin-how-roe-v-wade-affects-laws-supreme-court-decision/7704769001/

[Torie]

AG Garland: States can't ban FDA-approved abortion pills on safety grounds

I hope this holds true.

This will be litigated and go before the Supreme Court. 

Pro-choice advocates should really just lay low for a few years and focus on codifying abortion rights into as many States' laws as possible.  Going the litigious route just gives Alito & Co. the opportunity to create all sorts of anti-choice precedents that will take decades to overturn.

"The DOJ has no role to play in determining what the country's abortion laws will be" said the Supreme Court today.

Assuming a  state passes a law banning the morning after pill (I assume that is what this is) because it terminates an incipient pregnancy, I wonder if there are 41 Pubs who would oppose a federal law on the subject of the use of that pill. I also don't know how a state ban could be enforced.

If a state goes there, the Dems should force a vote on the matter. Garland should be upheld if a state plays a disingenuous regulatory game of the sort that he described.

[Torie]

Has this been posted here yet:

“Some House Republicans who oppose abortion rights are pushing legislation to implement a nationwide abortion ban at 15 weeks, coming just hours after the Supreme Court released its opinion overturning Roe v. Wade,” CNN reports.

“The legislation appears unlikely to advance in the Senate in the near future — due in part to the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Still, the early discussions represent the excitement energizing opponents of abortion rights, eager to capitalize on Friday’s victory.”

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. If Democrats can negotiate a little around the edges on the strictness of the ban at 15 weeks, i.e certain exceptions for the life and physical health of the mother, that would be a reasonable compromise given the situation and that there be no trickery before 15 weeks on 'regulating' abortion clinics or limiting abortion access. 91% of all abortions occur within the first trimester and 15 weeks would obviously be higher.

Federal law supercedes any state law. So, Alabama, for instance, would go back to having legal abortion to 15 weeks.

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. It would send a strong message to social conservatives that Republican politicians don't actually want to outright ban abortion.  

Because the law would be only about banning abortions under most circumstances after 15 weeks, while remaining silent as to their legality prior to 15 weeks?

[Torie]

Has this been posted here yet:

“Some House Republicans who oppose abortion rights are pushing legislation to implement a nationwide abortion ban at 15 weeks, coming just hours after the Supreme Court released its opinion overturning Roe v. Wade,” CNN reports.

“The legislation appears unlikely to advance in the Senate in the near future — due in part to the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Still, the early discussions represent the excitement energizing opponents of abortion rights, eager to capitalize on Friday’s victory.”

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. If Democrats can negotiate a little around the edges on the strictness of the ban at 15 weeks, i.e certain exceptions for the life and physical health of the mother, that would be a reasonable compromise given the situation and that there be no trickery before 15 weeks on 'regulating' abortion clinics or limiting abortion access. 91% of all abortions occur within the first trimester and 15 weeks would obviously be higher.

Federal law supercedes any state law. So, Alabama, for instance, would go back to having legal abortion to 15 weeks.

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. It would send a strong message to social conservatives that Republican politicians don't actually want to outright ban abortion.  

Because the law would be only about banning abortions under most circumstances after 15 weeks, while remaining silent as to their legality prior to 15 weeks?

The legislation would result in a nationwide ban at 15 weeks with red states banning it from the moment of conception.

Correct. And thus the poll I put up due to this lack of symmetry. Check it out, and vote if the spirit moves you.

[Torie]

Has this been posted here yet:

“Some House Republicans who oppose abortion rights are pushing legislation to implement a nationwide abortion ban at 15 weeks, coming just hours after the Supreme Court released its opinion overturning Roe v. Wade,” CNN reports.

“The legislation appears unlikely to advance in the Senate in the near future — due in part to the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Still, the early discussions represent the excitement energizing opponents of abortion rights, eager to capitalize on Friday’s victory.”

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. If Democrats can negotiate a little around the edges on the strictness of the ban at 15 weeks, i.e certain exceptions for the life and physical health of the mother, that would be a reasonable compromise given the situation and that there be no trickery before 15 weeks on 'regulating' abortion clinics or limiting abortion access. 91% of all abortions occur within the first trimester and 15 weeks would obviously be higher.

Federal law supercedes any state law. So, Alabama, for instance, would go back to having legal abortion to 15 weeks.

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. It would send a strong message to social conservatives that Republican politicians don't actually want to outright ban abortion.  

Because the law would be only about banning abortions under most circumstances after 15 weeks, while remaining silent as to their legality prior to 15 weeks?

The legislation would result in a nationwide ban at 15 weeks with red states banning it from the moment of conception.

Correct. And thus the poll I put up due to this lack of symmetry. Check it out, and vote if the spirit moves you.

It could get to 60 in the senate if it actually contained federally protected exceptions.

If you are right, I would expect it to be introduced immediately. Unfortunately, I am skeptical, but hopefully wrong about that. Is there any chat on the internet about trying to do this?

[Torie]

Has this been posted here yet:

“Some House Republicans who oppose abortion rights are pushing legislation to implement a nationwide abortion ban at 15 weeks, coming just hours after the Supreme Court released its opinion overturning Roe v. Wade,” CNN reports.

“The legislation appears unlikely to advance in the Senate in the near future — due in part to the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Still, the early discussions represent the excitement energizing opponents of abortion rights, eager to capitalize on Friday’s victory.”

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. If Democrats can negotiate a little around the edges on the strictness of the ban at 15 weeks, i.e certain exceptions for the life and physical health of the mother, that would be a reasonable compromise given the situation and that there be no trickery before 15 weeks on 'regulating' abortion clinics or limiting abortion access. 91% of all abortions occur within the first trimester and 15 weeks would obviously be higher.

Federal law supercedes any state law. So, Alabama, for instance, would go back to having legal abortion to 15 weeks.

I'm not sure why Republicans would support this. It would send a strong message to social conservatives that Republican politicians don't actually want to outright ban abortion.  

Because the law would be only about banning abortions under most circumstances after 15 weeks, while remaining silent as to their legality prior to 15 weeks?

The legislation would result in a nationwide ban at 15 weeks with red states banning it from the moment of conception.

Correct. And thus the poll I put up due to this lack of symmetry. Check it out, and vote if the spirit moves you.

Oh, thanks for the correction. I didn't think that was possible under federal law. I thought if the law sets a federal minimum at 15 weeks that would supercede any state law. I didn't know that federal law could say 'this is the maximum but states can have stricter laws.'

I've made several posts with factual errors in the last few days. If anybody cares, I'm going to punish myself by taking a one week leave from posting here.

I will allow myself an exception for commenting on economic issues.

Even if I don't always agree, I am impressed with your level of expertise and facility with economic issues, so I appreciate your awarding yourself that exception!

By symmetry in this context, I mean a federal law that applies to all states that states when you have a right to an abortion, and when you may not get an abortion. Both sides need to get something out of the deal, to get votes from both sides.

[Torie]

"I killed my baby so I could do drugs"

Quality argument.

Abortion isn't killing a baby, no matter how many times you repeat this lie.

Denying science isn't the flex you think it is.

There is no science to support the pro-life argument. If there was, you'd present some - but you just screech that everyone is a baby killer.

Science proves the unborn human in the womb is a baby.

It should be very easy for you to prove it with a reputable source then.

We know it's a baby because, if left alone, the unborn child will, one day, be an independent, autonomous human being   This is the order of things.  We know that unborn baby is a human being just as sure as we know that what is inside Federally Protected Turtle Eggs are turtles.  They are baby turtles from the minute the egg is laid.

https://www.thecotas.com/2012/01/sea-turtle-nests-protected-by-state-and-federal-law/

There are signs common in Florida and other coastal areas warning of potential fines and imprisonment for various offenses related to endangered sea turtles and their nests. The provisions are fairly specific yet wide-ranging.

Florida state law provides protection against taking, possessing, disturbing, mutilating, destroying or causing to be destroyed, selling or offering for sale, transferring, molesting, or harassing any marine turtle or its nest or eggs at any time.

Federal law provides even greater protection (and criminal penalties as severe as $100,000 and a year in prison) if you “take, harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or capture any marine turtle, turtle nest, and/or eggs, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.”

So why do you advoctate that we afford unborn turtles more protection under law than unborn humans?  We ARE doing this, and neither you, nor anyone else, don't doubt that the unhatched turtle is a turtle at some stage of development.  That should be obvious to everyone, should it not?  

Because there is no evidence that the mother turtle desires to seek an termination of her pregnancy, and seeks medical assistance from a vet doc, be it a turtle doc or a human doc otherwise. This line of attack of yours is the equivalent of your shaving down your fangs to stubs. JMO.

[Torie]

"I killed my baby so I could do drugs"

Quality argument.

Abortion isn't killing a baby, no matter how many times you repeat this lie.

Denying science isn't the flex you think it is.

There is no science to support the pro-life argument. If there was, you'd present some - but you just screech that everyone is a baby killer.

Science proves the unborn human in the womb is a baby.

It should be very easy for you to prove it with a reputable source then.

We know it's a baby because, if left alone, the unborn child will, one day, be an independent, autonomous human being   This is the order of things.  We know that unborn baby is a human being just as sure as we know that what is inside Federally Protected Turtle Eggs are turtles.  They are baby turtles from the minute the egg is laid.

https://www.thecotas.com/2012/01/sea-turtle-nests-protected-by-state-and-federal-law/

There are signs common in Florida and other coastal areas warning of potential fines and imprisonment for various offenses related to endangered sea turtles and their nests. The provisions are fairly specific yet wide-ranging.

Florida state law provides protection against taking, possessing, disturbing, mutilating, destroying or causing to be destroyed, selling or offering for sale, transferring, molesting, or harassing any marine turtle or its nest or eggs at any time.

Federal law provides even greater protection (and criminal penalties as severe as $100,000 and a year in prison) if you “take, harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or capture any marine turtle, turtle nest, and/or eggs, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.”

So why do you advoctate that we afford unborn turtles more protection under law than unborn humans?  We ARE doing this, and neither you, nor anyone else, don't doubt that the unhatched turtle is a turtle at some stage of development.  That should be obvious to everyone, should it not?  

Because there is no evidence that the mother turtle desires to seek an termination of her pregnancy, and seeks medical assistance from a vet doc, be it a turtle doc or a human doc otherwise. This line of attack of yours is the equivalent of your shaving down your fangs to stubs. JMO.

If a mother animal desires to kill her offspring (often occurs when a new mother is stressed in smaller animals), if caught in time and the babies can be saved, we always make an effort to prevent her from doing so. If we are using the logic of "if a mother desires to", who are we to stop her from killing her babies in that case? Do we have an obligation to let her do it and not intervene? Or do we do the right thing and save them if we have the opportunity to do so?

It seems like in your hypo, the offspring have reached point of viability, and indeed out of the "womb," so what you are doing in the human context, would be preventing the crime of homicide.

[Torie]

"I killed my baby so I could do drugs"

Quality argument.

Abortion isn't killing a baby, no matter how many times you repeat this lie.

Denying science isn't the flex you think it is.

There is no science to support the pro-life argument. If there was, you'd present some - but you just screech that everyone is a baby killer.

Science proves the unborn human in the womb is a baby.

It should be very easy for you to prove it with a reputable source then.

We know it's a baby because, if left alone, the unborn child will, one day, be an independent, autonomous human being   This is the order of things.  We know that unborn baby is a human being just as sure as we know that what is inside Federally Protected Turtle Eggs are turtles.  They are baby turtles from the minute the egg is laid.

https://www.thecotas.com/2012/01/sea-turtle-nests-protected-by-state-and-federal-law/

There are signs common in Florida and other coastal areas warning of potential fines and imprisonment for various offenses related to endangered sea turtles and their nests. The provisions are fairly specific yet wide-ranging.

Florida state law provides protection against taking, possessing, disturbing, mutilating, destroying or causing to be destroyed, selling or offering for sale, transferring, molesting, or harassing any marine turtle or its nest or eggs at any time.

Federal law provides even greater protection (and criminal penalties as severe as $100,000 and a year in prison) if you “take, harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, or capture any marine turtle, turtle nest, and/or eggs, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.”

So why do you advoctate that we afford unborn turtles more protection under law than unborn humans?  We ARE doing this, and neither you, nor anyone else, don't doubt that the unhatched turtle is a turtle at some stage of development.  That should be obvious to everyone, should it not?  

Because there is no evidence that the mother turtle desires to seek an termination of her pregnancy, and seeks medical assistance from a vet doc, be it a turtle doc or a human doc otherwise. This line of attack of yours is the equivalent of your shaving down your fangs to stubs. JMO.

If a mother animal desires to kill her offspring (often occurs when a new mother is stressed in smaller animals), if caught in time and the babies can be saved, we always make an effort to prevent her from doing so. If we are using the logic of "if a mother desires to", who are we to stop her from killing her babies in that case? Do we have an obligation to let her do it and not intervene? Or do we do the right thing and save them if we have the opportunity to do so?

It seems like in your hypo, the offspring have reached point of viability, and indeed out of the "womb," so what you are doing in the human context, would be preventing the crime of homicide.

In situations where the offspring hasn't reached a point of viability, we still intervene often, such as cases with animals that lay eggs.

I take it we have moved from turtles to those species that lay eggs that humans can get their hands on. The thing about eggs is that humans can replace the role of the mother by keeping them warm, etc, outside the body of the mother. This line of "attack" of course on the opposition is not really going to be replicated much out there by pro life advocates. Turtles and birds, are well - different.

What do you think about humans killing animals outside the womb because they enjoy their taste? I am about to consume a fish that someone previously "murdered." Pray for me.

[Torie]

It's not so much the end to Roe v. Wade itself that's worrisome. "States' rights" are at least in theory fine. It's the fact that a few U.S. states have now stricter abortion laws than Saudi Arabia as a result... and that's not even an exaggeration. Which means the political polarization of America is being transformed into the beginnings of a balkanization, a phenomenon which could even be further deepened if the Supreme Court starts to axe LGBTIQ rights next (something I hadn't thought possible previously, but what I have come to expect now).

In case you missed it, you might find this article of interest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/11/us/politics/roe-wade-supreme-court-abortion.html

[Torie]

It's not so much the end to Roe v. Wade itself that's worrisome. "States' rights" are at least in theory fine. It's the fact that a few U.S. states have now stricter abortion laws than Saudi Arabia as a result... and that's not even an exaggeration. Which means the political polarization of America is being transformed into the beginnings of a balkanization, a phenomenon which could even be further deepened if the Supreme Court starts to axe LGBTIQ rights next (something I hadn't thought possible previously, but what I have come to expect now).

In case you missed it, you might find this article of interest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/11/us/politics/roe-wade-supreme-court-abortion.html

Maybe Gorsuch would be open in keeping Obergefell and Lawrence, but maybe not. He may be being radicalized and we will have to deal with that. I would already say the chance that Griswold is overruled is about 50-50 by 2027. I think cases like the Bob Jones case might get overruled if the Court finds legitimate freedom of religion in allowing private providers of education or health care to have private segregation. 

I think Loving v. Virginia or Brown v. Board, or West Coast Hotel are probably safe unless a Republican is president when one of the 3 remaining dissenters leave the court.

I respectfully disagree that any  of the progeny of privacy/autonomy cases are at risk. If you read the Alito decision, it is explained what is necessary to overturn settled precedent, and one of the prongs is lack of a reasonable basis for reliance, and lack of broad acceptance. Birth control and legalized sodomy and same sex marriage have all been relied upon and accepted.
In addition, there is not the issue of another life being involved, and what that life is, and so forth. That is why the passage of time on Roe was never going to mitigate the wound in the public square.

While so much is going to hell, here, there and everywhere, over time I am optimistic that the US will adopt a national law similar to the ones in much of Europe, that allows abortion on demand in the first trimester, and more heavily restrict it thereafter. In fact, if things really go haywire, I can see Manchin going along on a one time basis with nixing the filibuster on this one issue this year. If that happens, we get a national law this year, protecting first trimester abortions.

[Torie]

Question is criminalizing informing someone how to secure an abortion who lives in a state that bans them a violation of the 1st Amendment?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/29/business/media/first-amendment-roe-abortion-rights.html

[Torie]

https://twitter.com/ap/status/1542504901074292737

While I support it, this will only work until the GOP gains control of the government. The Democrats better act fast because it is almost certain the GOP will gain control of one or both houses of Congress after the midterms.

That is how government is supposed to work. It is meant to be a living thing that responds directly to elections, after which the consequences of one's vote can be felt, understood and acted on in a reasonable amount of time.

Dismantling the filibuster just for this and stopping there might be poor strategy (and it would be a likely outcome given that they haven't even managed to use their filibuster-free reconciliation bills).

In principle, however, Democrats should be willing to trade in greater Republican legislative power in exchange for them also having this kind of power and the Supreme Court being weaker. The problem is that they don't see an advantage here because they don't want to wield legislative power - that would mean they'd have to act on an agenda they don't actually believe in.

I think the idea has traction. Manchin, Collins and Murkowski would not be willing to kill the filibuster now for everything because then any law could be passed with 50 votes plus Harris. If it is suspended for this one vote on this one issue, then it continues until one party or the other kills it when they have the votes. In the case of the Dems, that would be if they had 52 votes at the moment. So why not just do it, and pass something sensible, so we don't have woman traveling around all over the place to get a first trimester abortion, or messing with what pills they take. Let's pull the plug on that now.

[Torie]

You can get rid of the filibuster altogether for all I care. Then abortion is legalized nation-wide, followed by a nation-wide ban on abortion as soon as the GOP takes control of Congress, followed by a nation-wide re-legalization of abortion when the Dems are back in charge, and so on.

This would either truly lead to the Second American Civil War or it would showcase the ridiculous state of American politics to everyone so people would finally come to their senses in the end. Either way the gridlock would be broken.

I hate to admit it, but I think I am becoming an accelerationist on the issue of giving free reign to the parties to pass what they want a la a parliamentary system, but there needs to be true democratic accountability to go along with it. Let the cards fall where they may, no more of this bullsh**t grandstanding and impasses. The parties must run on the policies they actually pass, and if the American public hates it they will blow them out of the water in the next election.

I have favored repealing the Constitution and using the UK system since I was in high school. Yeah, at that age I was as weird, if not more weird,  as the current crop of young punks who infest this forum. The US system borders on the ludicrous, in so many ways. So per force of course, I dissent from the LDS position that it was inspired by God.

[Torie]

They're not stopping.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1542463030600032257

Literally unconstitutional

They. Don't. Care.

This is the point - states can try and start doing this now if they really want (esp the ones with more extreme R-led legislatures), and the SCOTUS would only rule on this if it actually made its way there, which would take a decent amount of time.

Lower courts would slap it down in a nano-second.

[Torie]

Ah, looks like my state of South Carolina just introduced a bill banning all abortions except for the life of the mother. If you're raped you still have to have the child.

The bill also makes it a felony to assist a woman or help a woman travel to another state for an abortion. I'm not sure how that is constitutional or how the state plans to stop a woman from getting into a car and driving to North Carolina or wherever else abortion is accessible.

If I did not know who you were, and your bio as it were, I would have assumed that as to the bolded sentence, you made it up out of whole cloth as an uber troll. You may not be sure counselor that criminalizing paying for the gas for a woman to drive down to Jacksonville for an abortion is an unconstitutional  burden on the right to travel, but I am.* Ditto for the woman traveling to Jacksonville paying for her own gas. This sh*t is being done as performance art to feed the ravenous appetites of the crazed base by amoral lean and hungry political actors.

*Notwithstanding that, inter alia, some, e.g., Clarence Thomas, may have the opposite opinion.

[Torie]

Ah, looks like my state of South Carolina just introduced a bill banning all abortions except for the life of the mother. If you're raped you still have to have the child.

The bill also makes it a felony to assist a woman or help a woman travel to another state for an abortion. I'm not sure how that is constitutional or how the state plans to stop a woman from getting into a car and driving to North Carolina or wherever else abortion is accessible.

If I did not know who you were, and your bio as it were, I would have assumed that as to the bolded sentence, you made it up out of whole cloth as an uber troll. You may not be sure counselor that criminalizing paying for the gas for a woman to drive down to Jacksonville for an abortion is an unconstitutional  burden on the right to travel, but I am.* Ditto for the woman traveling to Jacksonville paying for her own gas. This sh*t is being done as performance art to feed the ravenous appetites of the crazed base by amoral lean and hungry political actors.

*Notwithstanding that, inter alia, some, e.g., Clarence Thomas, may have the opposite opinion.

Of course, restricting the woman from traveling is unconstitutional. My statement of whether it is constitutional was said sarcastically, because it obviously is not constitutional to restrict travel. That's tantamount to saying I cannot travel to Colorado and smoke pot because pot is illegal in SC even though it is legal in Colorado.

I do not believe the bill in question forbids women from seeking abortions out of state, but it does forbid others from providing information on where to seek an abortion and forbids others from assisting the woman seeking an out of state abortion in any way. If I pay for gas for a women to go to Florida or NC for an out of state abortion, I am a felon and they will lock me up for 20 years if this bill is passed

Add a violation of the 1st Amendment to the list. So many amendments, so many violations, so little time.

Sorry if I irritated you. I did not mean to imply that you are anything other than an A+ rated lawyer in all that you do. As for this rotting old brain, my A rated days are long over. 

[Torie]

They're not stopping.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1542463030600032257

Literally unconstitutional

They. Don't. Care.

This is the point - states can try and start doing this now if they really want (esp the ones with more extreme R-led legislatures), and the SCOTUS would only rule on this if it actually made its way there, which would take a decent amount of time.

Lower courts would slap it down in a nano-second.

Again, what relevance is that when the case is inevitably going to wind up before the supremes?

I doubt that SCOTUS would even grant cert. The trial court slaps it down, and is upheld by the Appellate Court.

[Torie]

Oh boy, this is a legal mess.

Doesn't appear that the anti-abortion camp thought this thing through. They just got all emotional and couldn't see anything but "killing babies."

Let's be clear, it was never about "killing babies". It was always about punishing and controlling women.

If they were ever going to overturn Roe, that was their only chance. Otherwise, the religious right would have nothing.

The religious right still has nothing substantial to offer that has any basis in modern day reality, that can last the test of time. Women will continue having abortions no matter what the radical religious ones want. Trying to impose their will upon the entire population of this country, their religious beliefs, their fear of God, their desire to control the female body and whatever else they desire to control, these types of things are what will do them in, in the long run.  

Most of human history in the last couple thousand years would disagree.

What part of "modern day reality" don't you understand? That's what I'm talking about.

"Modern day reality" seems to never be consistent in what it wants. Most sane people would happily pick the tried and proven method in any other scenario vs constantly moving ridiculous goalposts if it wasn't for the emotional whims of people who are pretending they are somehow "oppressed" today.

What percentage of Americans do you consider "sane?" A bonus question is what percentage of Atlasians do you consider sane.

[Torie]

I read somewhere that some Pub candidates are taking down items regarding abortion from their primary campaigns. One of the joys of internet campaigns is that you can make stuff disappear.