SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[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.

[fhtagn]

"I killed my baby so I could do drugs"

Quality argument.

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeed/status/1540386807354990593?t=EhqOtoerYHbx8ycRxaAwjw...

[Angel of Death]

Does the ruling imply anything (binding) with respect to the constitutionality of legislating abortion on a federal level?

[Person Man]

Does the ruling imply anything (binding) with respect to the constitutionality of legislating abortion on a federal level?

No

[Angel of Death]

Does the ruling imply anything (binding) with respect to the constitutionality of legislating abortion on a federal level?

No

So any federal abortion law might possibly be struck down on Tenth Amendment grounds.

[Skill and Chance]

Does the ruling imply anything (binding) with respect to the constitutionality of legislating abortion on a federal level?

No

So any federal abortion law might possibly be struck down on Tenth Amendment grounds.

The commerce clause makes it at least interesting, but the current SCOTUS majority has generally worked to narrow the scope of interstate commerce.  Stuff like large employer employee benefits being  required or prohibited from covering abortion and refundable tax credits reimbursing abortion-related expenses or for giving birth that year pretty clearly could be done federally. 

[Alben Barkley]

"I killed my baby so I could do drugs"

Quality argument.

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeed/status/1540386807354990593?t=EhqOtoerYHbx8ycRxaAwjw...

I like Stevie Nicks/Fleetwood Mac, and am pro-choice, but she had that abortion in 1979, well after she was already a rich superstar. She certainly COULD have supported a kid by that time. And yeah, "I needed to keep making music and couldn't kick my drug habit" isn't the most persuasive argument to most people. Ultimately not even close to the most sympathetic abortion story; even though I support her right to choose, it's not the kind of example which I think helps more than it hurts when making pro-choice arguments.

[Ferguson97]

"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.

[7,052,770]

What about this for a model law?

First 15 weeks: legal on request
Weeks 16-24: rape, incest, human trafficking, domestic violence, extreme poverty, maternal health, fetal anomalies, female is <14 years of age
Weeks 25-birth: extreme medical emergencies

States who wish to go beyond this time limit may do so until viability, and maternal health must always be a relevant factor. However, this federal model is the minimum standard.

Most pro-choice people would compromise on less than that, but sure. Also, no one who believes abortion is murder will ever come close to that. That's why an "abortion compromise" is not even possible.

[fhtagn]

"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.

[Badger]

Um...wow. This was unexpected.

https://twitter.com/SenBobCasey/status/1540345011941900289

Now abortion isn't about "morals"  It isn't about "healthcare".  It isn't about "birth control".  It isn't about "privacy" any more than any other medical procedure.

It's about the issue of where HUMAN LIFE begins.  If that weren't the issue, there wouldn't be the ruckus.  This issue would have died 50 years ago with opposition to over-the-counter comdoms.

I have never been as disgusted with a politician as I am with Bob Casey, Jr. today.  Here's a guy who said he was a pro-life Democrat, but a statement such as this suggests that his principles on a life-and-death issue were paper-thin.  It's as if he posed to get elected, but now found a reason to give up the pose because he's from Pennsylvania and (most likely) wants to be President.

Those of you being pompous here, preaching about Christians making money off the Gospel (and, no, i'm not a supporter of Jesus, Inc.) ought to be calling out this utter shamelessness.  Was Bob Casey a fake all of these years?  Or is he fake now?  This is a guy that politically profited off the reputation of his pro-life Father to get elected, and now he's a shameless flip-flopper on a life-and-death issue.

I loathe Mitt Romney, but Mittens was never as shameless as this.  Not on his worst day.

Wrong.

It's about a tiny minority of theocrats like yourself enforcing your sense of morality on everyone else.

Perhaps you and those who agree with you are wrong, and God, Himself is making it clear.

This Forum is full of people trying to impose their secular morality on me.  This is hardly a "Live, and Let Live" place.  That's not good enough for many here on many issues.  Perhaps you can spend today thinking that God has a side in this issue, and you're out of sync with Him.  I know that many here simply think that's not possible, but maybe, just maybe, that's what's happening here.

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?

On a secular plane, there's nothing wrong with that.  Evangelical Christians have deep divisions with many secular people on matters of Eternal Siginificance.  Again:  I have never said that Donald Trump has been saved, or has lived what one would consider a "sanctified" life. 

We also have deep divisions and disagreements in matters of Eternal Significance with many Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, Jews, and Muslims, but we DO have (on a secular plane) areas of agreement with many of these people, and see nothing wrong with this.  I certainly don't agree with these other groups on important matters of theology, but we DO have agreement with many folks in these groups on the issue of abortion (and what God thinks about it), the role of the Family in society and the fact that God ordained the Family (long before He ordained the Church, as a matter of fact).  I have been critical of folks like Franklin Graham, who took down sections of his website which presented deep theological differences with Mormonism when he was supporting Mitt Romney.  Those theological differences are not trivial and should not be papered over, but they should not stop someone who is in Fundamental agreement with them on abortion, and on issues where Scripture is at odds with Secularism.

The Parable of the Two Sons
28 “What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’

29 “‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

30 “Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.

31 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?”

“The first,” they answered.

Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32 For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.

Donald Trump did the will of the Father while President (from our perspective).  Joe Biden is in open rebellion against the father (although he hasn't always been).  I justify my vote on that.

I've answered your question.  More than once.  You can disagree with me all you want, but my discussion with you on this particular issue is over.  If you say I haven't answered your question, you're "misspeaking" at best and "trolling" at worst.

Imagine thinking yourself anything but a grossly substandard American when you try to impose your very specific religious views upon the entire country oh, just because you stand for national anthem in sneer at people who kneel doing it.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

How are any of the conservative justices going to be able to show their faces in public now? Hard to imagine any of them will be doing any public speaking events anytime soon.

[Ferguson97]

"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.

[Badger]

"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.

" it's science because me and my pastor say so!!"

[fhtagn]

"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's a life stage we all experience. Science also proves that abortion ends their life, which is killing.

[Ferguson97]

"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.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

"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's a life stage we all experience. Science also proves that abortion ends their life, which is killing.

Baby isn't a scientific term and this isn't the type of thing that science "proves".

source: am actual scientist

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://twitter.com/GovTimWalz/status/1540714073431724032

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

"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?  

[Ferguson97]

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?  

I think you're confused, Fuzzy. This is an article about sea turtles. We're talking about abortion.

Can a mod please move his comment into the sea turtle megathread?

[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.

[fhtagn]

"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.

You need a reputable source to tell you if a pregnant woman is carrying an unborn human baby, and that abortion ends their life? Do you also need a reputable source to explain to you how to breathe, eat, and drink water?


Example 1

Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary © Farlex 2012

baby (bā′bē)

n. pl. ba·bies

a. A very young child; an infant.

b. An unborn child; a fetus.

c. The youngest member of a family or group.

d. A very young animal.

Example 2

Gestation is the period of time between conception and birth when a baby grows and develops inside the mother's womb. Because it's impossible to know exactly when conception occurs, gestational age is measured from the first day of the mother's last menstrual cycle to the current date. It is measured in weeks.

Example 3

What is a medical abortion?

A medical abortion (or medication abortion) is a procedure in which medication (prescription drugs) is used to end a pregnancy. It does not require surgery and is performed through the ninth week of pregnancy. It involves taking two medications — mifepristone and misoprostol. Mifepristone works by blocking the hormone progesterone. Without progesterone, the pregnancy cannot continue to grow in the uterus. Misoprostol causes cramping and bleeding to empty the uterus.

Whether you choose to accept this fact or not, the highlighted bit is just another way of saying the life of the human in the womb has ended and is removed from the uterus.


Example 4

Abortion means deliberately causing a miscarriage. In Australia, around 80,000 women have an abortion every year.

And in case you needed further explanation on Example 4:

Example 5

A miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy.

The bolded bit is just fancy speak for the fetus dies.

[Devout Centrist]

Please do not get into an argument with the Stalinist over when life begins; fetal personhood is a very fringe position, even after this ruling. Additionally, it isn't remotely relevant to the debates that will go on in state houses across the country over the coming years.

[fhtagn]

"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?

[Progressive Pessimist]

What about this for a model law?

First 15 weeks: legal on request
Weeks 16-24: rape, incest, human trafficking, domestic violence, extreme poverty, maternal health, fetal anomalies, female is <14 years of age
Weeks 25-birth: extreme medical emergencies

States who wish to go beyond this time limit may do so until viability, and maternal health must always be a relevant factor. However, this federal model is the minimum standard.

Most pro-choice people would compromise on less than that, but sure. Also, no one who believes abortion is murder will ever come close to that. That's why an "abortion compromise" is not even possible.

Casey essentially modified Roe v. Wade into being that compromise, yet that still wasn't enough.  They think so simplistically and reactionary that the only thing that will satisfy them and make them feel validated about reality is an outright national ban. That's next, should it even be possible.