SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[afleitch]

This is what happens when healthcare is moralised in the public sphere for political gain. Graphs and trends and questions and ads and laws.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Who will be #16?  Will South Carolina get its act together?  Will Georgia strengthen its heartbeat bill into an actual life at conception law?  Can we prevail in court one of the four Western states with unenforced bans on the books (AZ, UT, MT, WY)?  Maybe Ohio or Iowa?  Also, we face challenges holding in North Dakota (where the law is technically on hold, but there are no providers) and Wisconsin in the coming months.

[7,052,770]

What's more likely to happen first? 20 total bans, or return to 0?

[Hermit For Peace]

Total bans is a losing position. It won't last. Neither will legislation that is not good enough for women and their health care needs. This country is not going stupidly backwards without a fight.

[Ferguson97]

https://twitter.com/HuffPost/status/1570844990208614402

GOP Death Panels

[Skill and Chance]

Who will be #16?  Will South Carolina get its act together?  Will Georgia strengthen its heartbeat bill into an actual life at conception law?  Can we prevail in court one of the four Western states with unenforced bans on the books (AZ, UT, MT, WY)?  Maybe Ohio or Iowa?  Also, we face challenges holding in North Dakota (where the law is technically on hold, but there are no providers) and Wisconsin in the coming months.

My understanding is that a 6 week law is like 90% of the way toward a total ban, while a 15 week law is like 90% of the way toward Roe/Casey based on the distribution of abortions by length of pregnancy.   

[Skill and Chance]

What's more likely to happen first? 20 total bans, or return to 0?

It looks like there's a pretty hard ceiling around 18 or so, depending on how fast referenda get on the ballot in Western states and in the short run, it's likely to drop back toward 12 or so after the initiatives happen. 

Getting over 20 would probably require the kind of slow generational change scenario I described several weeks ago where basically the Roe/Casey era = Prohibition and allowing elective abortions today = being a dry state.   It would probably also have to involve a "pro-life because I would have been aborted under the old rules" youth voter movement in the 2040's.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Who will be #16?  Will South Carolina get its act together?  Will Georgia strengthen its heartbeat bill into an actual life at conception law?  Can we prevail in court one of the four Western states with unenforced bans on the books (AZ, UT, MT, WY)?  Maybe Ohio or Iowa?  Also, we face challenges holding in North Dakota (where the law is technically on hold, but there are no providers) and Wisconsin in the coming months.

My understanding is that a 6 week law is like 90% of the way toward a total ban, while a 15 week law is like 90% of the way toward Roe/Casey based on the distribution of abortions by length of pregnancy.   

It's true that the vast majority of abortions happen after 6 weeks, but we have a test study of Texas from September 2021 through June 2022, and my understanding is that abortions were only reduced by 50-60% during that period with a heartbeat bill but no ban.  Some abortions that would have been later happened pre-heartbeat.

[7,052,770]

What's more likely to happen first? 20 total bans, or return to 0?

It looks like there's a pretty hard ceiling around 18 or so, depending on how fast referenda get on the ballot in Western states and in the short run, it's likely to drop back toward 12 or so after the initiatives happen. 

Getting over 20 would probably require the kind of slow generational change scenario I described several weeks ago where basically the Roe/Casey era = Prohibition and allowing elective abortions today = being a dry state.   It would probably also have to involve a "pro-life because I would have been aborted under the old rules" youth voter movement in the 2040's.

There's also the question of supply. Interestingly, Mississippi would be grey on the map if the JWHO hadn't closed, because abortion is still theoretically legal in the case of rape, it's just that there is no clinic or hospital in the state that will do it. You could see national organizations start reopening clinics and moving the number back down. On the other hand, you could also see a push to states in the situation of Mississippi pass yet another law to take away the rape exemption.

I'd love to see the green states start putting "full protection for the first 13 weeks" on the ballot. I think it might win in half of them or more, and it needs to be timed with the 2024 or 2026 elections for coattails.

[Skill and Chance]

What's more likely to happen first? 20 total bans, or return to 0?

It looks like there's a pretty hard ceiling around 18 or so, depending on how fast referenda get on the ballot in Western states and in the short run, it's likely to drop back toward 12 or so after the initiatives happen. 

Getting over 20 would probably require the kind of slow generational change scenario I described several weeks ago where basically the Roe/Casey era = Prohibition and allowing elective abortions today = being a dry state.   It would probably also have to involve a "pro-life because I would have been aborted under the old rules" youth voter movement in the 2040's.

There's also the question of supply. Interestingly, Mississippi would be grey on the map if the JWHO hadn't closed, because abortion is still theoretically legal in the case of rape, it's just that there is no clinic or hospital in the state that will do it. You could see national organizations start reopening clinics and moving the number back down. On the other hand, you could also see a push to states in the situation of Mississippi pass yet another law to take away the rape exemption.

I'd love to see the green states start putting "full protection for the first 13 weeks" on the ballot. I think it might win in half of them or more, and it needs to be timed with the 2024 or 2026 elections for coattails.

Of the total ban states, only Arizona, Arkansas, the Dakotas, Michigan, Missouri, and Oklahoma have constitutional amendments by referendum that could create a right to abortion until week W and put it beyond the reach of the legislature.  I suspect the total ban would win a referendum anyway in Arkansas and Oklahoma, but the other 5 states would likely legalize. 

Ohio has constitutional amendments by referendum and has a 6 week ban.  It seems reasonably likely they would vote to extend the limit further. 

Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming can pass laws by referendum, but the legislature is still free to edit or repeal them like any other law, and they have a history of doing so when a progressive oriented referendum passes.

Kentucky will be voting on an amendment from the legislature that would basically write the abortion ban into the state constitution, but the trigger ban that already passed as a normal law would still be around even if this fails.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Explain this:

[Person Man]

Explain this:

More people live in pro-life states than Natalist states, so that’s good.

[Person Man]

What's more likely to happen first? 20 total bans, or return to 0?

It looks like there's a pretty hard ceiling around 18 or so, depending on how fast referenda get on the ballot in Western states and in the short run, it's likely to drop back toward 12 or so after the initiatives happen. 

Getting over 20 would probably require the kind of slow generational change scenario I described several weeks ago where basically the Roe/Casey era = Prohibition and allowing elective abortions today = being a dry state.   It would probably also have to involve a "pro-life because I would have been aborted under the old rules" youth voter movement in the 2040's.

If that happens…just goddamnit. But usually the opposite of this happens. Romania, Ireland… should I go on?

[Torie]

You know, Lindsay Graham was on to something regarding the 15 week thing. The only fly in the ointment is that his proposal is to ban abortion after 15 weeks, rather than protect it on a national basis up to 15 weeks. If he had done the latter, he might have actually proved to be some positive use in the public square. As it is he continues to be irritating pandering noise.

[Brittain33]

You know, Lindsay Graham was on to something regarding the 15 week thing. The only fly in the ointment is that his proposal is to ban abortion after 15 weeks, rather than protect it on a national basis up to 15 weeks. If he had done the latter, he might have actually proved to be some positive use in the public square. As it is he continues to be irritating pandering noise.

Republicans are going to have to lose a lot of elections before conceding that big a compromise, and it’s not clear yet that will happen, I think.

[BlueSwan]

You know, Lindsay Graham was on to something regarding the 15 week thing. The only fly in the ointment is that his proposal is to ban abortion after 15 weeks, rather than protect it on a national basis up to 15 weeks. If he had done the latter, he might have actually proved to be some positive use in the public square. As it is he continues to be irritating pandering noise.

Indeed.

Infact, I think democrats should work towards exactly such a bill. Guaranteed right to abortion the first 15 weeks, no questions asked. States are then free to have whatever restrictions they wish after 15 weeks. I'm pretty sure that such a federal law would be widely popular.

[Torie]

You know, Lindsay Graham was on to something regarding the 15 week thing. The only fly in the ointment is that his proposal is to ban abortion after 15 weeks, rather than protect it on a national basis up to 15 weeks. If he had done the latter, he might have actually proved to be some positive use in the public square. As it is he continues to be irritating pandering noise.

Indeed.

Infact, I think democrats should work towards exactly such a bill. Guaranteed right to abortion the first 15 weeks, no questions asked. States are then free to have whatever restrictions they wish after 15 weeks. I'm pretty sure that such a federal law would be widely popular.

The other option is to have a national bill that also deals with after 15 weeks, restricting it to issues related to protecting the mother from significant physical harm or where it is clear that the fetus will not survive outside the womb. That is the grand compromise in fact that I have favored since Roe came down believe it or not. I thought Roe was bad law. But Lindsay Graham in reverse is better than what we have now (obviously), and I would take what I can get.

[Skill and Chance]

You know, Lindsay Graham was on to something regarding the 15 week thing. The only fly in the ointment is that his proposal is to ban abortion after 15 weeks, rather than protect it on a national basis up to 15 weeks. If he had done the latter, he might have actually proved to be some positive use in the public square. As it is he continues to be irritating pandering noise.

Indeed.

Infact, I think democrats should work towards exactly such a bill. Guaranteed right to abortion the first 15 weeks, no questions asked. States are then free to have whatever restrictions they wish after 15 weeks. I'm pretty sure that such a federal law would be widely popular.

That's 90%+ of all abortions that were happening last year.  Why would pro-lifers agree to that when they could have total state bans for decades?  I do think they would accept a federal 6 or 8 week law that would override total state bans, but it would have to be well short of 15.  Libertarian Republican influence would have to grow dramatically for this to work out.

There's also the matter of whether federal abortion legislation would even be constitutional.  Supporters would most likely have to argue that it's interstate commerce, but the conservative justices have generally sought to narrow the scope of the commerce clause for decades.  Roberts even joined in on this in the first Obamacare case, and there is an earlier precedent that a sexual assault case that occurred within one state was not interstate commerce.  In light of this, I'm not sure any of the 6 conservatives think abortion is interstate commerce that can be regulated at the federal level.  I'm particularly confident Gorsuch and Thomas don't.

[Person Man]

One thing that is interesting is when someone is going to attempt to break these laws or attempt to enforce them. Are these laws a sufficient deterrent with alternatives being reasonably close enough to make it premature to try to start defying these states? I doubt that even in the majority of the instances that someone gets into an bad situation and goes "welp... I guess I'm a 15 year old parent now" or "welp, I guess I'm just going to abandon the baby", or "I guess I'll die" and just gives up. But who knows? Some right-wingers are betting on people giving up on this once they get their way.  

If the clergy and LEO institutions finally decide to go on an offensive, will there be any form of resistance? Will any crackdown be violent? Will there be a wave of police brutality or "Left-Wing" terrorism? What about procedural chaos caused by pro-choice jurors "nullifying" cases? What if some states aggressively pursued "long arm" policies by sending in Ubers from Palm Springs to pick up people in St. George, UT? Or maybe Abbot will have undercover Texas rangers go kidnap women in Kansas? I mean, the future of this country belongs to the brave. If Governors are "road tripping" hundreds of people, how responsible would it be to not aggressively push this issue. Especially in certain swing states that have been allowed to become Hybrid regimes of Electoral Dictatorships (Wisconsin, Florida, et al).

I am really interested in what happens next with this sh**tstorm. Maybe people are waiting for the election to see 1) how big abortion actually is as an issue and 2) their side's likeliness to prevail electorally.

[Hermit For Peace]

Male politicians are pushing for women who get abortions to receive prison time, that's what this article is about. Men still need to feel that they control women, that's the bottom line here. And I say, good luck with that. It's a losing battle. Nevertheless, women's lives, and doctor's lives are being egregiously affected by these misogynists. And it's a shame.

A businessman turned state representative from rural Oil City, Louisiana, and a Baptist pastor banded together earlier this year on a radical mission.

They were adamant that a woman who receives an abortion should receive the same criminal consequences as one who drowns her baby.

Under a bill they promoted, pregnant people could face murder charges even if they were raped or doctors determined the procedure was needed to save their own life. Doctors who attempted to help patients conceive through in-vitro fertilization, a fertility treatment used by millions of Americans, could also be locked up for destroying embryos, and certain contraception such as Plan B would be banned.

“The taking of a life is murder, and it is illegal,” state Rep. Danny McCormick told a committee of state lawmakers who considered the bill in May, right after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked.

“No compromises, no more waiting,” Brian Gunter, the pastor who suggested McCormick be the one to introduce the legislation, told the committee.

An overwhelming majority of Americans said in a Pew Research Center poll they don’t believe men should have a greater say on abortion policy, but that is what is happening. Experts told CNN that the male dominance fits within the anti-abortion movement’s current framing as being focused on “fetal personhood” and “fetal rights” as opposed to maternal rights.

Eric Swank, an Arizona State University professor who has studied gender differences in anti-abortion activists, said his research found that while men aren’t necessarily more likely to consider themselves to be “pro-life” than women, they “are more willing to take the adamant stance of no abortion under any conditions.”

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/20/politics/abortion-bans-murder-charges-invs/index.html

[Ferguson97]

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1572205319534649344

[Person Man]

Male politicians are pushing for women who get abortions to receive prison time, that's what this article is about. Men still need to feel that they control women, that's the bottom line here. And I say, good luck with that. It's a losing battle. Nevertheless, women's lives, and doctor's lives are being egregiously affected by these misogynists. And it's a shame.

A businessman turned state representative from rural Oil City, Louisiana, and a Baptist pastor banded together earlier this year on a radical mission.

They were adamant that a woman who receives an abortion should receive the same criminal consequences as one who drowns her baby.

Under a bill they promoted, pregnant people could face murder charges even if they were raped or doctors determined the procedure was needed to save their own life. Doctors who attempted to help patients conceive through in-vitro fertilization, a fertility treatment used by millions of Americans, could also be locked up for destroying embryos, and certain contraception such as Plan B would be banned.

“The taking of a life is murder, and it is illegal,” state Rep. Danny McCormick told a committee of state lawmakers who considered the bill in May, right after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked.

“No compromises, no more waiting,” Brian Gunter, the pastor who suggested McCormick be the one to introduce the legislation, told the committee.

An overwhelming majority of Americans said in a Pew Research Center poll they don’t believe men should have a greater say on abortion policy, but that is what is happening. Experts told CNN that the male dominance fits within the anti-abortion movement’s current framing as being focused on “fetal personhood” and “fetal rights” as opposed to maternal rights.

Eric Swank, an Arizona State University professor who has studied gender differences in anti-abortion activists, said his research found that while men aren’t necessarily more likely to consider themselves to be “pro-life” than women, they “are more willing to take the adamant stance of no abortion under any conditions.”

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/20/politics/abortion-bans-murder-charges-invs/index.html

Like I said, I wonder when people start getting locked up over what has already been passed.

[new_patomic]

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1572205319534649344

He literally said that, huh

[wbrocks67]

I believe a judge in AZ is deciding today whether to uphold the 1901 abortion ban in the state.

[Torie]

You know, Lindsay Graham was on to something regarding the 15 week thing. The only fly in the ointment is that his proposal is to ban abortion after 15 weeks, rather than protect it on a national basis up to 15 weeks. If he had done the latter, he might have actually proved to be some positive use in the public square. As it is he continues to be irritating pandering noise.

Indeed.

Infact, I think democrats should work towards exactly such a bill. Guaranteed right to abortion the first 15 weeks, no questions asked. States are then free to have whatever restrictions they wish after 15 weeks. I'm pretty sure that such a federal law would be widely popular.

That's 90%+ of all abortions that were happening last year.  Why would pro-lifers agree to that when they could have total state bans for decades?  I do think they would accept a federal 6 or 8 week law that would override total state bans, but it would have to be well short of 15.  Libertarian Republican influence would have to grow dramatically for this to work out.

There's also the matter of whether federal abortion legislation would even be constitutional.  Supporters would most likely have to argue that it's interstate commerce, but the conservative justices have generally sought to narrow the scope of the commerce clause for decades.  Roberts even joined in on this in the first Obamacare case, and there is an earlier precedent that a sexual assault case that occurred within one state was not interstate commerce.  In light of this, I'm not sure any of the 6 conservatives think abortion is interstate commerce that can be regulated at the federal level.  I'm particularly confident Gorsuch and Thomas don't.

There is effectively a zero chance SCOTUS would find the provision of abortion services outside the purview of interstate commerce - zero. This is on top of SCOTUS knowing that balkanized abortion laws is terrible public policy, and yes public policy does influence how SCOTUS interprets text.