The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[The Evil Genius]

1 minute ago, gbear said:

I would like to point out there was a very high profile vote during Trump's presidency to repeal the ACA.  There was a Republican senator who made a fairly big showing of refusing to toe the party line.  Of course, he is dead now.  RIP Maverick of the Senate.

 

Fwiw, it appears that McCain was also heavily influenced by Russian assets, if you believe his former campaign manager, Steve Schmidt. 

[bcl05]

Cover of the May 14 Lancet (one of the most widely read and prestigious medical journals):

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Destino]

On 5/12/2022 at 7:46 AM, Larry said:

There is not a chance in hell the GOP leaves abortion up to the states. 

This.  I’ve been saying it since the Roe news broke.  This whole states business is obvious nonsense.  The moment republicans have full control they’ll ban it outright at the federal level.  
 

People really need to stop taking republican talking points at face value.  They’re never sincere.  

[skinsmarydu]

6 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

People really need to stop taking republican talking points at face value.  They’re never sincere.  

And their followers don't care.  They lie too. 

When you know nothing, you speak nothingness.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Larry]

Hey, it actually is the logical effect of the artificial position that a fertilized egg is a person, that they have intentionally adopted, so they could justify banning abortions. 

[philibusters]

23 minutes ago, Larry said:

Hey, it actually is the logical effect of the artificial position that a fertilized egg is a person, that they have intentionally adopted, so they could justify banning abortions. 

 

As you say, that position is logically consistent even I think its a bad rule.

 

For me what makes abortion so tough is that to some extent any line you draw is going to be arbitrary.   For me its tough to think of a two cell embryo in the same light as a new born child.  However, by the same token I see very little different between an 8 month old fetus and a newborn child.   So obviously my preference is to draw the line somewhere in between those points, but drawing that line just feels so arbitrary.

[Cooked Crack]

29 minutes ago, Larry said:

Hey, it actually is the logical effect of the artificial position that a fertilized egg is a person, that they have intentionally adopted, so they could justify banning abortions. 

The next logical effect is then arresting women. Can't tell me you believe it's murder and let the one who gets the abortion get away.

[Larry]

35 minutes ago, philibusters said:

 

As you say, that position is logically consistent even I think its a bad rule.

 

For me what makes abortion so tough is that to some extent any line you draw is going to be arbitrary.   For me its tough to think of a two cell embryo in the same light as a new born child.  However, by the same token I see very little different between an 8 month old fetus and a newborn child.   So obviously my preference is to draw the line somewhere in between those points, but drawing that line just feels so arbitrary.

Well, true. Society is full of lines that are arbitrary, but they have to be drawn somewhere. 
 

There is no magical quantum transformation that happens at midnight on somebody's 18th or 21st birthdays. 

[88Comrade2000]

2 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

The next logical effect is then arresting women. Can't tell me you believe it's murder and let the one who gets the abortion get away.

Actually, if they feel abortion is murder; then they will be executing these women.

Think Louisiana plans to do just that. Others will follow.

Edited May 15, 2022 by 88Comrade2000

[philibusters]

22 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

Actually, if they feel abortion is murder; then they will be executing these women.

Think Louisiana plans to do just that. Others will follow.

 

Its possible but unlikely.   While I expect there are hardcore anti-abortion people who would be okay with that, I think Republican politicians will be tracking on how risky that would be politically for a PR perspective.  I think Republican politicians realize the country leans pro-choice and they are not going to want sensational headlines like "woman given death penalty for seeking an abortion".  That is a national news story where 80% of the country is going to be on the other side.

[Cooked Crack]

Just now, philibusters said:

 

Its possible but unlikely.   While I expect there are hardcore anti-abortion people who would be okay with that, I think Republican politicians will be tracking on how risky that would be politically for a PR perspective.  I think Republican politicians realize the country leans pro-choice and they are not going to want sensational headlines like "woman given death penalty for seeking an abortion".  That is a national news story where 80% of the country is going to be on the other side.

Initially, yes. I mean we have the Louisiana House passing out of committee a bill to charge patients with murder. That got scrapped but only a matter of time before that actually comes to pass and all the other states down south are doing it.

[88Comrade2000]

1 hour ago, philibusters said:

 

Its possible but unlikely.   While I expect there are hardcore anti-abortion people who would be okay with that, I think Republican politicians will be tracking on how risky that would be politically for a PR perspective.  I think Republican politicians realize the country leans pro-choice and they are not going to want sensational headlines like "woman given death penalty for seeking an abortion".  That is a national news story where 80% of the country is going to be on the other side.

The gop politicians don’t give a ****.

 

It won’t affect them one bit in the states likely to pass a law executing women having abortions.

 

If the gop has full control in 24; then they will make it national. 24 could be the last election in this country. 
 

Don’t underestimate what the gop will do now in places they have control and in the future if the gain full control of the national government. They will make sure there’s no more elections .

[LadySkinsFan]

4 hours ago, philibusters said:

 

As you say, that position is logically consistent even I think its a bad rule.

 

For me what makes abortion so tough is that to some extent any line you draw is going to be arbitrary.   For me its tough to think of a two cell embryo in the same light as a new born child.  However, by the same token I see very little different between an 8 month old fetus and a newborn child.   So obviously my preference is to draw the line somewhere in between those points, but drawing that line just feels so arbitrary.

 

That's what Roe v. Wade is right now, and doesn't deny abortions for maternal health and deformed fetuses. There's no reason to overturn Roe v. Wade.

 

I'm further incensed that these people are bringing religion into this, because a birth certificate is titled Certificate of Live Birth, and legally fetuses have no legal standing until they take a breath. Something Christians seem to forget if they believe that God breathed the breath of life into Adam. And we all know what humans are born of females and not from Adam's rib. Really, how ridiculous. And why are Christians so invested in trying to prove Biblical stories as facts, like the incessant search for Noah's Arc or Jesus' shroud of Turin? Obsessive pursuits.

[philibusters]

29 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

The gop politicians don’t give a ****.

 

It won’t affect them one bit in the states likely to pass a law executing women having abortions.

 

If the gop has full control in 24; then they will make it national. 24 could be the last election in this country. 
 

Don’t underestimate what the gop will do now in places they have control and in the future if the gain full control of the national government. They will make sure there’s no more elections .

 

The GOP politicians are not stupid.  They know it will be a hard issue for them to win on the national stage.  Thus they will want to confine it to the state level where they can only play it when its a winning hand.    

 

That said its going to put them in a tough spot if they hold both houses of Congress and the Presidency in 2024 because their base would love a national ban.  Lets say they do the cost benefit analysis and decide its better to impose a national ban and please their base and take on the risk of having to deal with abortion as a national issue.  They could have an "out" yet.  The Supreme Court could overturn a national ban and has the political motivations to do so:

1.   By ruling a national abortion ban unconstitutional because it infringes on the powers reserved to the states under the 10th amendment, the Supreme Court effective peremptorily rules a national protection unconstitutional.  Given that the nation pretty clearly leans pro-choice and that its only a matter of time before Democrats gain back power and pass one, that may be a net win for Republicans.

2.  For the sake of the country its probably best if we didn't alternate between national abortion bans and protection laws and a decision overturning a ban would prevent that from happening.

3.  They help out Republicans because the abortion issue is a losing issue for Republicans on a national stage.

4.  They gain prestige for the Supreme Court.  Right now the Supreme Court's prestige took a hit by striking down a national abortion law they achieve the first three objectives above while at the same time looking non-partisan by striking down a Republican law and gaining prestige.

[China]

Meanwhile in Spain...

 

Spanish govt proposes wider abortion rights, menstrual leave

 

The Spanish government approved a draft bill Tuesday that widens abortion rights for teenagers and may make Spain the first country in Europe entitling workers to paid menstrual leave.

 

The measures are part of a package of proposals that will be sent to the Spanish parliament for debate. The package includes an extension of abortion rights, scrapping the requirement for 16- and 17-year-olds to obtain parental consent before terminating a pregnancy.

 

The Spanish move comes just as the U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to reverse that country's constitutional right to abortion, in place for nearly a half-century.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[88Comrade2000]

On 5/15/2022 at 9:13 PM, philibusters said:

 

The GOP politicians are not stupid.  They know it will be a hard issue for them to win on the national stage.  Thus they will want to confine it to the state level where they can only play it when its a winning hand.    

 

That said its going to put them in a tough spot if they hold both houses of Congress and the Presidency in 2024 because their base would love a national ban.  Lets say they do the cost benefit analysis and decide its better to impose a national ban and please their base and take on the risk of having to deal with abortion as a national issue.  They could have an "out" yet.  The Supreme Court could overturn a national ban and has the political motivations to do so:

1.   By ruling a national abortion ban unconstitutional because it infringes on the powers reserved to the states under the 10th amendment, the Supreme Court effective peremptorily rules a national protection unconstitutional.  Given that the nation pretty clearly leans pro-choice and that its only a matter of time before Democrats gain back power and pass one, that may be a net win for Republicans.

2.  For the sake of the country its probably best if we didn't alternate between national abortion bans and protection laws and a decision overturning a ban would prevent that from happening.

3.  They help out Republicans because the abortion issue is a losing issue for Republicans on a national stage.

4.  They gain prestige for the Supreme Court.  Right now the Supreme Court's prestige took a hit by striking down a national abortion law they achieve the first three objectives above while at the same time looking non-partisan by striking down a Republican law and gaining prestige.

This Supreme Court will hold any national abortion ban.

[philibusters]

6 hours ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

This Supreme Court will hold any national abortion ban.

 

They might.  But abortion is a losing issue for Republicans and eventually that will likely result in some type of national law that protects abortion rights.   

 

There is no way that the commerce clause could permit Congress to pass a national abortion ban, where it wouldn't also permit a national law protecting the right to abortion.  In other words, when when the Supreme Court rules on either a national law protecting the right to abortion or a national ban they are effectively ruling on the constitutionality of both.

 

It is certainly possible the Supreme Court would uphold a national abortion ban, but I do think you are underestimating Republicans.  They understand that as soon as Republicans lose power, the Democrats will repeal their ban and pass a protection law.  They also understand its not a good issue for them on a national stage, 60% of the population supports the Democrats.  As much as we like to criticize and make fun of politicians most of them are intelligent and have pretty good political instincts.  What looks like insanity to us is often effective politics.

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, philibusters said:

 

They might.  But abortion is a losing issue for Republicans and eventually that will likely result in some type of national law that protects abortion rights.   

 

There is no way that the commerce clause could permit Congress to pass a national abortion ban, where it wouldn't also permit a national law protecting the right to abortion.  In other words, when when the Supreme Court rules on either a national law protecting the right to abortion or a national ban they are effectively ruling on the constitutionality of both.

 

It is certainly possible the Supreme Court would uphold a national abortion ban, but I do think you are underestimating Republicans.  They understand that as soon as Republicans lose power, the Democrats will repeal their ban and pass a protection law.  They also understand its not a good issue for them on a national stage, 60% of the population supports the Democrats.  As much as we like to criticize and make fun of politicians most of them are intelligent and have pretty good political instincts.  What looks like insanity to us is often effective politics.

 

All they need to do to uphold an abortion ban and not an abortion rights law is to rule that a fetus is a person and so has rights protected by the Constitution.

 

This idea has been out there for a while:

 

https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2015/08/20/fetal-personhood-and-the-constitution/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20443281/

 

If Congress passes a law that extends Constitutional protections to fetuses as people and it is approved by the President, the Supreme Court could easily give deference to them.

 

While simultaneously arguing that laws providing abortion rights are a violation of states' rights.

Edited May 18, 2022 by PeterMP

[Larry]

21 minutes ago, philibusters said:

But abortion is a losing issue for Republicans and eventually that will likely result in some type of national law that protects abortion rights.   

 

And do you really think that this Supreme Court allows a federal law mandating abortion access for all to stand?  

 

I assert that there are two possible explanations for this ruling:  

 

1)  There are six people on the SC who had no opinions about abortion whatsoever.  Until a few weeks or months ago, every one of them simultaneously decided that not only must abortion be banned, but that it must be done by explicitly, openly, declaring that Roe never existed in the first place, and was defective for their entire lives.  (But they just hadn't noticed that, till now.)  

 

2)  All six of them have been openly, transparently, obviously lying about their position.  Until they achieved the number of votes so that they could finally, after lying for their entire lives, rip off the masks, and reveal that they were lying all along, but haha suckers, now our clever trap has sprung, and we can ****ing gloat about it!  

 

Which option you think is more credible?  

 

Just as Trump is the logical, predictable, result of decades of brainwashing a demographic with racist dog whistles, and conditioning that the phrase "well, that's your opinion" means "I can make up anything I want, and you can't stop me, and I don't want to actually learn anything about the subject", this decision is the predictable result of 50 years of demanding that to get to the Supreme Court, spending 50 years lying is a mandatory qualification.  

 

Pass a national law, establishing a right to abortion for the first trimester.  And I guarantee you that this court will rule it unconstitutional.  Probably without even waiting for it to go through the lower courts.  

 

And frankly, every person who's been paying as much attention as I have (And I'm really ignorant about politics.  Just not quite as ignorant as some.)  has known that this game was going on.  

 

Every single Republican SC nominee who has stood before Congress, under oath and flat out stated that he has no predetermined opinions on the legality of abortion, for the last 40 years, has been lying his ass off.  

 

And every person in the room.  Every person reporting on it.  Every person watching on TV?  Has known it.  

 

Including Susan Collins.  

 

Most of the Right?  Have been proud of this.  They have puffed out their chests and felt a warmth inside, at how powerful it made them feel, one of "their side" being able to lie their ass off, and everybody knows it, and still get away with it, anyway.  

 

And come on.  It's also would be the logical result of the fiction that they've spent the last 50 years building, so they could get to this point.  

 

In order to ban abortion, they have had to announce that a fertilized egg is a person, with full legal and constitutional rights.  

 

They've altered science education, to get there.  

 

When I was in junior high, I was taught that the developing fetus had gills and a tail.  (As I understand it now, the former is actually untrue.  It has what look like gill slits.  But never actually has gills.)

 

I wasn't taught this as some kind of "Look!  This proves that the fetus isn't human!" indoctrination.  The actual context of the information was "So, back when scientists discovered this, they thought that this illustrated the evolutionary sequence that lead to humans.  But now days, we know that the folks back then were wrong."  

 

But now days, I'd bet you a huge sum of money that any mention of this developmental stage has been successfully mandated be removed from all education.  At least at lower levels.  It interferes with the agenda that the fetus looks like a baby doll, only smaller.  

 

If you Google things like "fetus has gills and a tail", more than half the hits you get will be web sites loudly announcing that this is a complete lie, invented by pro-abortion forces.  And that the fetus never ever has them.  

 

(About half of them, if you read far enough, will mention that well, actually, it does have a tail.  But, since it goes away, and it never uses it, therefore it never exists at all.)  

 

50 years ago, the notion of fetal personhood was artificially created, for the purpose of creating a justification for banning abortion.  It was, from the start, something that was created, as a tool to achieve a goal.  

 

And ever since then, the "abortion debate" has consisted of:  

 

"Well, if you honestly believe that a fertilized egg is a person, then that would mean that you have to . . . "

"OK, we did that.  Now can we ban abortion?"  

 

At no point have the people wanting to ban abortion found a single thing that they won't pretend to believe, if pretending to believe it will get them to ban abortion.  There is no logical hoop that they are not willing to jump through, to get to that goal.  

 

They are even willing to openly say that they're doing it.  When people point out that, if a fertilized egg is a person, then these petri dishes at the fertility clinic are people, state legislatures will vote on strict party lines to make disposal of petri dishes a capital murder offense.  And then they'll go on the record, saying "Hey, we told the fertility clinics that we don't really intend to enforce this law against them.  It's just something we have to do, so we can ban abortion."  

 

State legislatures will spend weeks, on the floor of the state capital, announcing that they are making it illegal to perform an abortion unless the doctor received his medical license in state, has fully paid off his student loans and his house. that the clinic owns free and clear title to the land it's built on, including all mineral and water rights, and was born a Virgo "because we're trying to protect the mother's health".  And then, an hour after the bill becomes law, have a celebratory press conference on the steps of the state capital, to celebrate the fact that they just banned every abortion provider in the state except one.  

 

In short, for the last 50 years, there is no immoral act that the anti-abortion people have not been willing to spend decades doing, if it will get them to the goal.  

 

And that includes every single R on the Supreme Court.  Every one of them has spent their lives doing precisely that.  As a price they willingly paid, to get where they are.  

 

You think a Dem Congress passing a federal law is going to stop them?  

[philibusters]

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

If Congress passes a law that extends Constitutional protections to fetuses as people and it is approved by the President, the Supreme Court could easily give deference to them.

 

 

 

That is a possibility, but I rank the chances of the Supreme Court going that way significantly less likely than you.  But you are correct, they could argue that the 14th amendment due process clause protects the life of the fetus.

3 hours ago, Larry said:

 

And do you really think that this Supreme Court allows a federal law mandating abortion access for all to stand?  

 

 

 

No I don't think the Supreme Court would allow a federal law mandating abortion access to stand.  My point was that if they ruled a national abortion ban unconstitutional for encroaching on powers reserved to the state, that would also effectively be ruling a federal law mandating abortion access unconstitutional at the same time because the legal issue with either law is whether the federal gov't has the powers granted to it in the Constitution to make a law regarding abortion or whether the 10th amendment reserved that power to the states.   So finding a national abortion ban unconstitutional is a sneaky way for the court to rule a federal law mandating abortion access unconstitutional.

[bcl05]

 

[Ball Security]

13 minutes ago, bcl05 said:

 

Did not know she is a mother.  Gross.

[LadySkinsFan]

The greatest choice a woman can make is choosing to live her best life, whatever that may be.