SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Person Man]

Sure but that is why a federalist system works the best as you let the people in each state decide their abortion laws cause it is very hard to reconcile a position of thinking a fetus is a life and then supporting the pro choice position.

So the best compromise imo is letting the people in each state decide democratically what abortion laws they want .

"Yes I think that abortion is infanticide, but also it should be a states' rights issue."

Why would a genuinely pro-life person accept anything less than a national abortion ban?

States rights is the compromise between people who think that and the people who think it should be completely legal

Yes I understand how that meets the definition of a compromise, but my question is why would either side accept those conditions?

Group A thinks that Group B wants to kill babies, and Group B thinks that Group A wants to restrict bodily autonomy. We're not talking about a tax bill here, both groups believe that the other side is evil.

Why would you compromise with people that you think are killing babies? If you really believe that abortion kills a baby, then you should be treating us as Nazi-levels of evil. We'd be some of the worst people to ever exist.

Why compromise with us?

And it goes the other way around. Those that accuse others of genocide are themselves accused of mass enslavement and conquest.

[wbrocks67]

Sure but that is why a federalist system works the best as you let the people in each state decide their abortion laws cause it is very hard to reconcile a position of thinking a fetus is a life and then supporting the pro choice position.

So the best compromise imo is letting the people in each state decide democratically what abortion laws they want .

"Yes I think that abortion is infanticide, but also it should be a states' rights issue."

Why would a genuinely pro-life person accept anything less than a national abortion ban?

States rights is the compromise between people who think that and the people who think it should be completely legal

states right WOULD be a compromise if you weren't dealing with a bunch of red state governors who were outright banning it.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Sure but that is why a federalist system works the best as you let the people in each state decide their abortion laws cause it is very hard to reconcile a position of thinking a fetus is a life and then supporting the pro choice position.

So the best compromise imo is letting the people in each state decide democratically what abortion laws they want .

"Yes I think that abortion is infanticide, but also it should be a states' rights issue."

Why would a genuinely pro-life person accept anything less than a national abortion ban?

States rights is the compromise between people who think that and the people who think it should be completely legal

states right WOULD be a compromise if you weren't dealing with a bunch of red state governors who were outright banning it.

Well then you can take upon Nancy Mace proposal which would protect the basic exceptions as such a proposal probably gets 60 votes in the senate

[7,052,770]

Sure but that is why a federalist system works the best as you let the people in each state decide their abortion laws cause it is very hard to reconcile a position of thinking a fetus is a life and then supporting the pro choice position.

So the best compromise imo is letting the people in each state decide democratically what abortion laws they want .

"Yes I think that abortion is infanticide, but also it should be a states' rights issue."

Why would a genuinely pro-life person accept anything less than a national abortion ban?

States rights is the compromise between people who think that and the people who think it should be completely legal

states right WOULD be a compromise if you weren't dealing with a bunch of red state governors who were outright banning it.

Well then you can take upon Nancy Mace proposal which would protect the basic exceptions as such a proposal probably gets 60 votes in the senate

Sure, it's better to have the exceptions protected than not, but that's hardly a fair middle point between the pro positions from a pro-choice, and I doubt someone who sincerely believes abortion is murder would even consider it.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Sure but that is why a federalist system works the best as you let the people in each state decide their abortion laws cause it is very hard to reconcile a position of thinking a fetus is a life and then supporting the pro choice position.

So the best compromise imo is letting the people in each state decide democratically what abortion laws they want .

"Yes I think that abortion is infanticide, but also it should be a states' rights issue."

Why would a genuinely pro-life person accept anything less than a national abortion ban?

States rights is the compromise between people who think that and the people who think it should be completely legal

states right WOULD be a compromise if you weren't dealing with a bunch of red state governors who were outright banning it.

Well then you can take upon Nancy Mace proposal which would protect the basic exceptions as such a proposal probably gets 60 votes in the senate

Sure, it's better to have the exceptions protected than not, but that's hardly a fair middle point between the pro positions from a pro-choice, and I doubt someone who sincerely believes abortion is murder would even consider it.

No its not a middle point but its not like you are gonna get some grand compromise right now after decades of Roe polarizing the issue. Finding a broad consensus is not gonna be easy at all and will take probably at least a decade if not longer but a bill that protects the basic exceptions would have a consensus so it is a bill that you should pass at the moment.

[7,052,770]

Sure but that is why a federalist system works the best as you let the people in each state decide their abortion laws cause it is very hard to reconcile a position of thinking a fetus is a life and then supporting the pro choice position.

So the best compromise imo is letting the people in each state decide democratically what abortion laws they want .

"Yes I think that abortion is infanticide, but also it should be a states' rights issue."

Why would a genuinely pro-life person accept anything less than a national abortion ban?

States rights is the compromise between people who think that and the people who think it should be completely legal

states right WOULD be a compromise if you weren't dealing with a bunch of red state governors who were outright banning it.

Well then you can take upon Nancy Mace proposal which would protect the basic exceptions as such a proposal probably gets 60 votes in the senate

Sure, it's better to have the exceptions protected than not, but that's hardly a fair middle point between the pro positions from a pro-choice, and I doubt someone who sincerely believes abortion is murder would even consider it.

No its not a middle point but its not like you are gonna get some grand compromise right now after decades of Roe polarizing the issue. Finding a broad consensus is not gonna be easy at all and will take probably at least a decade if not longer but a bill that protects the basic exceptions would have a consensus so it is a bill that you should pass at the moment.

I'm also not sure if there are enough abortions due to rape in the red states to sustain an abortion clinic financially. Like in Mississippi none of the hospitals are going to do it, so if Jackson Women's Health Organization can't stay open, it doesn't really matter what's theoretically legal and what's not.

Yes, I would vote for your bill while also communicating that it's not the last word, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't effective if it didn't also guarantee some level of elective abortions, even just the first 6 weeks

[Person Man]

Sure but that is why a federalist system works the best as you let the people in each state decide their abortion laws cause it is very hard to reconcile a position of thinking a fetus is a life and then supporting the pro choice position.

So the best compromise imo is letting the people in each state decide democratically what abortion laws they want .

"Yes I think that abortion is infanticide, but also it should be a states' rights issue."

Why would a genuinely pro-life person accept anything less than a national abortion ban?

States rights is the compromise between people who think that and the people who think it should be completely legal

states right WOULD be a compromise if you weren't dealing with a bunch of red state governors who were outright banning it.

Well then you can take upon Nancy Mace proposal which would protect the basic exceptions as such a proposal probably gets 60 votes in the senate

Sure, it's better to have the exceptions protected than not, but that's hardly a fair middle point between the pro positions from a pro-choice, and I doubt someone who sincerely believes abortion is murder would even consider it.

No its not a middle point but its not like you are gonna get some grand compromise right now after decades of Roe polarizing the issue. Finding a broad consensus is not gonna be easy at all and will take probably at least a decade if not longer but a bill that protects the basic exceptions would have a consensus so it is a bill that you should pass at the moment.

I'm also not sure if there are enough abortions due to rape in the red states to sustain an abortion clinic financially. Like in Mississippi none of the hospitals are going to do it, so if Jackson Women's Health Organization can't stay open, it doesn't really matter what's theoretically legal and what's not.

Yes, I would vote for your bill while also communicating that it's not the last word, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't effective if it didn't also guarantee some level of elective abortions, even just the first 6 weeks

Pretty much this. OSR was right in that banning particular late term abortion procedures wouldn’t stop its proponents from eventually going further. Maybe require a bill that forces states to tolerate therapeutic abortion and forensic abortion would also require that the abortion is performed in at least one publicly funded inpatient clinic in states that don’t have abortion clinics.

[Skill and Chance]

Sure but that is why a federalist system works the best as you let the people in each state decide their abortion laws cause it is very hard to reconcile a position of thinking a fetus is a life and then supporting the pro choice position.

So the best compromise imo is letting the people in each state decide democratically what abortion laws they want .

"Yes I think that abortion is infanticide, but also it should be a states' rights issue."

Why would a genuinely pro-life person accept anything less than a national abortion ban?

States rights is the compromise between people who think that and the people who think it should be completely legal

Yes I understand how that meets the definition of a compromise, but my question is why would either side accept those conditions?

Group A thinks that Group B wants to kill babies, and Group B thinks that Group A wants to restrict bodily autonomy. We're not talking about a tax bill here, both groups believe that the other side is evil.

Why would you compromise with people that you think are killing babies? If you really believe that abortion kills a baby, then you should be treating us as Nazi-levels of evil. We'd be some of the worst people to ever exist.

Why compromise with us?

People often recognize geographic and pragmatic limits to achieving their goals, even on moral issues involving human rights.  This, fundamentally, is  the reason the free world is not currently at war with Russia and China.   Even in WWII, we waited until US territory was attacked to get fully involved.     

[libertpaulian]

bro do the republicans not realize they've basically gone commie? for them there's no longer a "my body" it's "our body"

If you believe a fetus is a life then you have to support banning abortion pretty much though.

I get where you are coming from but the thing about it to me at least is that you can really only do what you can do which is what you think is right, so like my wife and I agree that we could never have an abortion unless it was medically necessary because we do not think that is a good thing to be doing. But it would be wrong of me to tell someone else that they couldn't have an abortion because then I'm enforcing my beliefs on them.

Sure but that is why a federalist system works the best as you let the people in each state decide their abortion laws cause it is very hard to reconcile a position of thinking a fetus is a life and then supporting the pro choice position.

So the best compromise imo is letting the people in each state decide democratically what abortion laws they want .

Just like interracial marriage? You know, let each state sort it out for themselves depending on their view on the issue? And the views rights of individuals affected be damned?

Completely false comparison given that Roe has nothing to do with the equal protection Clause and it would be laughable to claim it should .

Actually, equal protection would have been a stronger argument for legal abortion than a right to privacy.

[Former President tack50]

Question: how long until someone (presumably a doctor) gets prosecuted for breaking an abortion ban?

[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

[Person Man]

Question: how long until someone (presumably a doctor) gets prosecuted for breaking an abortion ban?

There’s always a woman somewhere getting arrested for “abusing” her fetus but this would be different?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I googled "methotrexate abortion ban" and found this. This was written by a board certified emergency physician shortly before the decision was announced:

The only exception for the new abortion ban in Tennessee would be for the “life of the mother,” a term deliberately vague enough to give many doctors and healthcare workers pause. What does the “life of the mother” exception really mean? How threatened must someone’s life be before we can intervene and help them medically?

Take ectopic pregnancies. In an ectopic pregnancy, a fertilized egg implants itself outside the uterus, typically in the fallopian tubes or an ovary, but occasionally into other sites in the abdominal cavity. I’ve seen a case report of an ectopic pregnancy in someone’s liver.

These pregnancies are not viable. Contrary to the belief of some politicians, there is no medical way to salvage them or reimplant them into the uterus. Eventually, an ectopic pregnancy will grow large enough to rupture the organ in which it is growing and cause the patient to hemorrhage.

In current practice, if I diagnose an ectopic pregnancy in my emergency department, I call my obstetric/gynecology colleague and we discuss the case. If the patient is not too far along in the pregnancy and there are no signs of rupture, we treat the patient with a medical abortion. The patient takes a pill called methotrexate and follows up in the clinic for a repeat ultrasound and check of her hormone levels. If there is cardiac activity on ultrasound, hormone levels are high, the ectopic pregnancy is large or there are any signs of rupture, the Ob/Gyn physician takes the patient for an operation to remove the ectopic pregnancy, thus aborting the nonviable fetus.

In countries with laws preventing abortions for any reason, patients with non-viable fetuses have become septic from uterine infections and died. Is that what lies in store for patients in a post-Roe v. Wade Tennessee?

In a post-Roe state where abortion is illegal from the moment of conception with only “life of the mother” exceptions, a physician may hesitate to act until the patient is hemorrhaging and their life is at risk. But we know from years of scientific study that treating ectopic pregnancies prior to rupture leads to better outcomes and fewer deaths. I worry that the vaguely-worded abortion laws about to take effect in Tennessee will cause women to suffer and die as a result.

https://twitter.com/acrowandthedead/status/1541602157492948994

To underline how discriminatory these abortion bans are: a man with Rhumatoid would, obviously, not have this problem. As stories like this become more widespread, people are going to see why they are inherently unequal and do not work. Louisiana managed to ban abortion so many times that the conflicting bans had to be halted by a judge. These anti-abortion lawmakers have no idea what they're doing.

[Hermit For Peace]

Question: how long until someone (presumably a doctor) gets prosecuted for breaking an abortion ban?

We are headed for a doctor shortage in our country. Prosecuting them and putting them away in prison sure isn't going to go over well with the population, seems to me.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Question: how long until someone (presumably a doctor) gets prosecuted for breaking an abortion ban?

We are headed for a doctor shortage in our country. Prosecuting them and putting them away in prison sure isn't going to go over well with the population, seems to me.

Well also medical schools deliberate limit admissions and residencies so that there will always be less new doctors graduating every year than open positions. Hospitals make up the gap with IMGs and Nurse Practitioners.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Question: how long until someone (presumably a doctor) gets prosecuted for breaking an abortion ban?

We are headed for a doctor shortage in our country. Prosecuting them and putting them away in prison sure isn't going to go over well with the population, seems to me.

The far-right reactionary Christians Theocrats in this country don't care about real negative consequences, as long as they can develop the hegemony they always wanted to see that vindicates their views,  it's worth it.

[Hermit For Peace]

Question: how long until someone (presumably a doctor) gets prosecuted for breaking an abortion ban?

We are headed for a doctor shortage in our country. Prosecuting them and putting them away in prison sure isn't going to go over well with the population, seems to me.

The far-right reactionary Christians Theocrats in this country don't care about real negative consequences, as long as they can develop the hegemony they always wanted to see that vindicates their views,  it's worth it.

That's why I say there is no compromising with them. In their hearts they want to ban all abortion. Period. And they have been ordained by God to do so. They will stop at nothing, and no compromise will be good enough for them.

I am open to being pleasantly surprised, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Question: how long until someone (presumably a doctor) gets prosecuted for breaking an abortion ban?

We are headed for a doctor shortage in our country. Prosecuting them and putting them away in prison sure isn't going to go over well with the population, seems to me.

The far-right reactionary Christians Theocrats in this country don't care about real negative consequences, as long as they can develop the hegemony they always wanted to see that vindicates their views,  it's worth it.

That's why I say there is no compromising with them. In their hearts they want to ban all abortion. Period. And they have been ordained by God to do so. They will stop at nothing, and no compromise will be good enough for them.

I am open to being pleasantly surprised, but I'm not holding my breath.

They are just getting more and more extreme on it too. Does anybody remember during the 2016 primaries that Trump actually had to backpedal when he talked about imprisoning women for abortions due to GOP pressure, and then "moderated"  by instead saying that only the doctors who conduct them should be punished? Yeah, well now we're at the point everybody involved is going to be investigated or punished. And then the next step is banning or heavily restricting contraception. What's after that? Sex only in the proximity of clergy?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Question: how long until someone (presumably a doctor) gets prosecuted for breaking an abortion ban?

We are headed for a doctor shortage in our country. Prosecuting them and putting them away in prison sure isn't going to go over well with the population, seems to me.

The far-right reactionary Christians Theocrats in this country don't care about real negative consequences, as long as they can develop the hegemony they always wanted to see that vindicates their views,  it's worth it.

That's why I say there is no compromising with them. In their hearts they want to ban all abortion. Period. And they have been ordained by God to do so. They will stop at nothing, and no compromise will be good enough for them.

I am open to being pleasantly surprised, but I'm not holding my breath.

Mississippi House Speaker says 12-year-old incest victims should continue pregnancies to term

Mississippi House Speaker Philip Gunn (R) told reporters Wednesday it is his “personal belief” that if a 12-year-old girl is a victim of incest she should still be made to carry a resulting pregnancy to term.

“I believe that life begins at conception and every life is valuable. Those are my personal beliefs,” Gunn said.

A reporter then asked, “So that 12-year-old child molested by her father or uncle should carry that child to term?” to which Gunn replied, “That is my personal belief.”

I find I am unable to comment on this one while remaining within forum guidelines.

[7,052,770]

As horrendous as Gunn's beliefs are, I respect them more than the idea that abortion should be illegal, but with an exception for rape. If you honestly believe a fetus is a person from the moment of fertilization, then you can't allow abortion in any circumstances of that fertilization.

Anyone who thinks abortion should be generally illegal but is OK with a rape exception isn't basing their opposition to legal abortion on the idea that a fetus is a person, but on something like "actions have consequences" or "personal responsibility" or "punish women for having sex," etc., which are ultimately worse in my eyes than "even a zygote is a person."

[Person Man]

As horrendous as Gunn's beliefs are, I respect them more than the idea that abortion should be illegal, but with an exception for rape. If you honestly believe a fetus is a person from the moment of fertilization, then you can't allow abortion in any circumstances of that fertilization.

Anyone who thinks abortion should be generally illegal but is OK with a rape exception isn't basing their opposition to legal abortion on the idea that a fetus is a person, but on something like "actions have consequences" or "personal responsibility" or "punish women for having sex," etc., which are ultimately worse in my eyes than "even a zygote is a person."

Or as I said, someone can think abortion is immoral and illegal without them believing aborting a fetus is killing a person.

[7,052,770]

As horrendous as Gunn's beliefs are, I respect them more than the idea that abortion should be illegal, but with an exception for rape. If you honestly believe a fetus is a person from the moment of fertilization, then you can't allow abortion in any circumstances of that fertilization.

Anyone who thinks abortion should be generally illegal but is OK with a rape exception isn't basing their opposition to legal abortion on the idea that a fetus is a person, but on something like "actions have consequences" or "personal responsibility" or "punish women for having sex," etc., which are ultimately worse in my eyes than "even a zygote is a person."

Or as I said, someone can think abortion is immoral and illegal without them believing aborting a fetus is killing a person.

Sure, but I don't have any respect for the idea that abortion isn't murder but still should be illegal anyway because "sex should have consequences" or whatever.

If/when it is murder, it's got to be illegal even in the case of rape, and if/when it's not, it's got to be legal regardless of the reason.

[afleitch]

The Pro-Life movement and it's legislative victories is a broadly non secular and Christian driven movement. So their views on abortion, carried through into law, overlaps with their generally restrictive (to put it mildly) views on women and the family.

To put less mildly and to paraphrase a tweet I can't find; the Pro-Life movement carries with it an undercurrent of 'slut shaming.'

That individual women will suffer, or with the methotrexate example, will be burdened by restrictions based on biological sex that a man would not, is of no consequence to the Pro-Life movement.

As horrendous as Gunn's beliefs are, I respect them more than the idea that abortion should be illegal, but with an exception for rape. If you honestly believe a fetus is a person from the moment of fertilization, then you can't allow abortion in any circumstances of that fertilization.

Anyone who thinks abortion should be generally illegal but is OK with a rape exception isn't basing their opposition to legal abortion on the idea that a fetus is a person, but on something like "actions have consequences" or "personal responsibility" or "punish women for having sex," etc., which are ultimately worse in my eyes than "even a zygote is a person."

I sort of agree. If you're genuinely Pro-'fetus' you really shouldn't make exceptions for rape, incest, severe genetic abnormalities that lead to immediate death upon separation from the womb and depending on how you evaluate age when providing care, sometimes the life of the mother.

Making those exceptions a priori, already concedes that the interests of the mother are placed higher, before you get down to the rest of the tick box exercise.

People should be pressed on this. As I've said before, people who wrap themselves in the Pro-Life identity when pushed, aren't really. Or at least hold views more in line with say, the UK status quo. But their silence or passive grandstanding had empowered the worst elements of pernicious conservatism.

On that note, a shout out to the spectacular failure of the Moderate Hero 'consistent life ethic' folk who have in handing the ball over to the conservatives have won f-ck all other than an abortion ban.

As I mentioned elsewhere

'the Church exerts almost negligible influence on public policy or policy within the political pro-life movement

It has little influence on any matter of public policy in either party on welfare, death penalty, human trafficking, the gays etc where it holds equally articulated convictions.

Abortion is it's only 'win', even supplying much of the activist base but at the cost of conceding pretty much everything else. For all it's faults at least the Church understands that you can't have an absolutist policy, and support the people most affected by it without a social change that the United States will not commit to.

Part of the reason I posted this is because it's an abject failure of the entire movement and everyone in it, in choosing to legislatively push and electorally dogwhistle almost exclusively for one sole part of the movement or 'consistent life ethic' or however it's framed for fifty years, that the realities of post Roe today, won't be the same realities post Roe say, two or three decades ago. It will be an absolute hellscape in most red states and potentially Roe on steroids in blue states.'

[/rant]

[wbrocks67]

They're not stopping.

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

[Person Man]

As horrendous as Gunn's beliefs are, I respect them more than the idea that abortion should be illegal, but with an exception for rape. If you honestly believe a fetus is a person from the moment of fertilization, then you can't allow abortion in any circumstances of that fertilization.

Anyone who thinks abortion should be generally illegal but is OK with a rape exception isn't basing their opposition to legal abortion on the idea that a fetus is a person, but on something like "actions have consequences" or "personal responsibility" or "punish women for having sex," etc., which are ultimately worse in my eyes than "even a zygote is a person."

Or as I said, someone can think abortion is immoral and illegal without them believing aborting a fetus is killing a person.

Sure, but I don't have any respect for the idea that abortion isn't murder but still should be illegal anyway because "sex should have consequences" or whatever.

If/when it is murder, it's got to be illegal even in the case of rape, and if/when it's not, it's got to be legal regardless of the reason.

Or at least restrictions on all activities that people are afraid of or offended by should be regulated in the same amount.