America transitions into Gilead

[Minoosh]

Right. But I can't just order those drugs over the internet, which is what you originally referred to.

Yes you can. Or, correction: Maybe you can't, but a woman of childbearing age could. Or could a few months ago. There are overseas doctors doing online evaluations, writing the script and shipping the drugs. Is this legal? That's "fuzzy." There are probably people of conscience doing it in the U.S. as well.

Mail-Order Abortions Are Now Available in the U.S. What Does That Mean for American Women?

The original question was whether there would be investigations by prosecutors following miscarriages. In a situation like the above, the investigation would consist of a simple check of the doctor's records. Was there a medical reason for ordering the drugs? Yes? No problem. No? Crime.

The medical application of these drugs is quite narrow. Also I note how casually you say "a simple check of doctor's records" could justify its use. That means there's already an investigation.

"Murky prosecutorial discretion" is a legitimate fear. ... However, as murky as it is, it's not all that murky ...

There you go again.

... and any attempt to prosecute would be thrown out on appeal if not right away.

In a federal appeals court, probably. In Georgia?

The law establishes that a specific act is a specific crime with a specific penalty. If some prosecutor were to say, "Aha! But it also says this other thing in this other section so I can actually prosecute for some other crime that carries a much harsher penalty!" it would be thrown out.

Oh jeebus. What is going on with you?

Of course, in the meantime someone would have had to spend a zillion dollars in lawyer fees and possibly spend time in jail before it was thrown out on appeal, so that's not a lot of comfort.

Prison would be more likely than jail if you're convicted of a felony. But I salute you for acknowledging that your scenario is "not a lot of comfort."

 

[Minoosh]

The purpose of personhood bills is to ban abortion and treat all abortions as murder. I don't understand why Meadmaker refuses to see this fact.

That's the purpose, but the effect could go even farther than that. More scrutiny could be focused on the behavior of all women of childbearing age.

 

[Meadmaker]

Oh jeebus. What is going on with you?

Sorry. It won't happen again.

 

[Minoosh]

It's conceivable that the SJC would decide fetuses are persons, but not likely. Far more likely is that they decide more narrowly that abortion laws and personhood status be left to the states.

On what basis do you assert "it's far more likely"? I don't know how the Supreme Court could justify giving the unborn Fourteenth Amendment rights in Georgia, but not in other states. That's just not how it works.

Drunk driving is a serious offense but rarely caught. The obvious way to catch more folks driving drunk is to require breathalyzers in every car with results uploaded to a central registry. We don't do that and it is nigh inconceivable that the surveillance you suggest would pass a laugh test in the courts.

There's a better public-policy justification for requiring ignition locks than there is for banning abortion (unless fetuses are members of the public).

And ... if all cars had these devices, wouldn't it prevent drunk driving? It probably wouldn't have to go to a central database - just getting the info would deter a lot of drivers.

You simply go way, way too far in your concerns.

How far should I go? All I'm doing is fact-checking and looking for fallacious arguments. It's taken a few hours, but I've learned a lot.

Agreed, though I'd guess that most folks on the pro-life side would embrace the personhood issue.

So might the Supreme Court. And for the zillionth time (sorry), I've not seen a counterargument on why a SC ruling on personhood would not become the law of the land.

 

[phiwum]

On what basis do you assert "it's far more likely"? I don't know how the Supreme Court could justify giving the unborn Fourteenth Amendment rights in Georgia, but not in other states. That's just not how it works.

The 14th Amendment grants rights to persons within a jurisdiction. Georgia is proposing expanding the set of persons, not restricting it. I don't see any contradiction in claiming that states are free to increase their obligation required by the 14th Amendment.

In general, the Supreme Court aims for decisions on narrower, rather than wider, grounds. This is why I think it's far more likely for them to allow the Georgia bill to stand (or even to strike down the personhood section while allowing the remainder of the bill to stand) rather than say, hey, know what? Fetuses are persons and every state must recognize that.

Allowing the outlawing of abortion strikes me as unlikely, though not implausible. It strikes me as nearly unthinkable that the Court would require every state to adopt the same conditions on personhood.

There's a better public-policy justification for requiring ignition locks than there is for banning abortion (unless fetuses are members of the public).

And ... if all cars had these devices, wouldn't it prevent drunk driving? It probably wouldn't have to go to a central database - just getting the info would deter a lot of drivers.

Er, right. And no state does any of that, even though there's an argument in its favor. Why not? Because it wouldn't stand up in Court. It would be a clear violation of privacy.

So would any attempts to surveil use of pregnancy tests, a medical need, for gosh sake. It just won't happen.

Let's focus on the clearly very bad thing that the bill explicitly does. It outlaws abortion. It does not call for monitoring the purchase of pregnancy tests.

How far should I go? All I'm doing is fact-checking and looking for fallacious arguments. It's taken a few hours, but I've learned a lot.

So might the Supreme Court. And for the zillionth time (sorry), I've not seen a counterargument on why a SC ruling on personhood would not become the law of the land.

The Court has the power to make it the law of the land, but it is a drastic step. Seems to me there is no contradiction in allowing states to proclaim fetuses are persons without requiring states to do so. Logically speaking, the latter cannot be more likely than the former (but it would be just as likely if there were a contradiction). Realistically speaking, I simply can't imagine the Court going so far at this time.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Meadmaker's point is quite the opposite. He wants abortion to be legal. He doesn't think that the case is helped when people exaggerate what's at stake. There's a serious push to make abortion illegal. There is no push to monitor pregnancy test results.

But there's an assumption there that no one would turn these women in. Most people who get abortions don't do it in secret. Maybe they wouldn't go public, but friends and/or family would be involved most of the time.

 

[phiwum]

But there's an assumption there that no one would turn these women in. Most people who get abortions don't do it in secret. Maybe they wouldn't go public, but friends and/or family would be involved most of the time.

That's not the point I was responding to.

As well, it is unclear whether the Georgia bill could be used to prosecute women who received an abortion. A spokeswoman (or whatever her role is, the article didn't say or I missed it) for Planned Parenthood said it could not. Others suggest it can. It is perhaps a risk, but not a certainty.

 

[Cabbage]

I talk to Trump supporters. More importantly, I listen to Trump supporters.

Oh, you mean the Trump supporters that have been brainwashed to believe there's a War on Christmas? LOL!

 

[Cabbage]

Meadmaker's point is quite the opposite. He wants abortion to be legal. He doesn't think that the case is helped when people exaggerate what's at stake. There's a serious push to make abortion illegal. There is no push to monitor pregnancy test results.

Sincere question: How else do you handle getting your message across when your opponent is damned determined to do their own exaggerations of what's at stake? How do you win the narrative back?

Oh, and I'm specifically thinking of the current climate when so many of us refuse to listen to anything they don't already believe in.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Because as we all know, China and India aborting their way to demographic catastrophe has ensured a golden age of gender equality, right? Right?

 

[Cabbage]

Because as we all know, China and India aborting their way to demographic catastrophe has ensured a golden age of gender equality, right? Right?

I'm not aware of anyone in the United States proposing forced abortions (such as in China).

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I'm not aware of anyone in the United States proposing forced abortions (such as in China).

No, it's more the belief that abortion empowers women by itself, except the demographic pressures both countries face have fuelled ultranationalist sentiment (when there are disproportionately more men than women due to sex selective abortions, that's alarm bells ringing!)

 

[AnonyMoose]

I'm not aware of anyone in the United States proposing forced abortions (such as in China).

Nor is the US proposing forced abortions on just a specific gender to purposefully increase one side of the gender demographic (more males, less females).

But apparently, comparing India and China's reproductive situations with the current situation happening in the US is a sound, highly logical analogy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, it's more the belief that abortion empowers women by itself, except the demographic pressures both countries face have fuelled ultranationalist sentiment (when there are disproportionately more men than women due to sex selective abortions, that's alarm bells ringing!)

Abortion doesn't empower women, empowered women make their own choice about their own bodies.

Comparing cultures where female children are aborted or killed because women are treated like chattel is actually evidence supporting pro-choice but something tells me you can't connect those dots.

 

[Minoosh]

Sincere question: How else do you handle getting your message across when your opponent is damned determined to do their own exaggerations of what's at stake? How do you win the narrative back?

Oh, and I'm specifically thinking of the current climate when so many of us refuse to listen to anything they don't already believe in.

It's a possible irony in my case that I have never been unreservedly pro-choice. I usually don't participate in these kinds of arguments. But this combination of bills galls me.

There's a national effort afoot to float different restrictions in different legislatures to find out what will stick. Evangelicals can really be salt-of-the-earth people but they aren't ... evidence-based. And I think public policy should be evidence-based, because if we're going to restrict individual rights, let's do it in an intelligent way, to make sure Bill X is really the fix for Problem Y. The reason these bills irk me so much is their stupidity. So I attack the most stupid provisions - not the concept of restrictions.

Wanting to outlaw abortion because fetuses are people is at least a consistent position. Trying to do that while holding women harmless is not. From what I've read, Georgia's law is more consistent than Alabama's, but they took pains to make it look like abortion would be available before 6 weeks. But any medical practitioner who performed one would be killing a person under that state's laws. People pretending this isn't true drives me bonkers. "Fetal heartbeat" may sound reasonable (ETA: to some people), but the way the law is written, the personhood definition does not depend on the fetal heartbeat. The definition exempts embryos in Petri dishes. I wonder why.

 

[Cabbage]

No, it's more the belief that abortion empowers women by itself, except the demographic pressures both countries face have fuelled ultranationalist sentiment (when there are disproportionately more men than women due to sex selective abortions, that's alarm bells ringing!)

Oh, so totally different from the situation in the US.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[Cabbage]

It's a possible irony in my case that I have never been unreservedly pro-choice. I usually don't participate in these kinds of arguments. But this combination of bills is galling to me.

There's a national effort afoot to float different restrictions in different legislatures to find out what will stick. Evangelicals can really be salt-of-the-earth people but they aren't ... evidence-based. And I think public policy should be evidence-based, because if we're going to restrict individual rights, let's do it in an intelligent way, to make sure Bill X is really the fix for Problem Y. The reason these bills irk me so much is their stupidity. So I attack the most stupid provisions - not the concept of restrictions.

Wanting to outlaw abortion because fetuses are people is at least a consistent position. Trying to do that while holding women harmless is not. From what I've read, Georgia's law is more consistent than Alabama's, but they took pains to make it look like abortion would be available before 6 weeks. But any medical practitioner who performed one would be killing a person under that state's laws. People pretending this isn't true drives me bonkers. "Fetal heartbeat" may sound reasonable, but the way the law is written, the personhood definition does not depend on the fetal heartbeat. The definition exempts embryos in Petri dishes. I wonder why.

I'm not disagreeing with you nor am I defending pro-lifers, just pointing out that this is at least consistent with their victimhood presentation of their side of the abortion debate. For example, at least in the past few years (maybe longer) many in the GOP have taken the narrative that abortion is actually minority genocide (as if abortion is coerced), pointing out that many aborters are black, along with presenting out of context quotes from Margaret Sanger to indicate racism.

 

[Minoosh]

I'm not disagreeing with you nor am I defending pro-lifers, just pointing out that this is at least consistent with their victimhood presentation of their side of the abortion debate. For example, at least in the past few years (maybe longer) many in the GOP have taken the narrative that abortion is actually minority genocide (as if abortion is coerced), pointing out that many aborters are black, along with presenting out of context quotes from Margaret Sanger to indicate racism.

That's a mystery to me - why would they want more black babies?

And the victimhood thing makes me want to wring somebody's neck.

 

[Cabbage]

That's a mystery to me - why would they want more black babies?

And the victimhood thing makes me want to wring somebody's neck.

I think the idea is they want more voters, convincing blacks that the Dems are their enemy.

 

[Minoosh]

Man, China had this **** down! One high-status neighbor probably physically checked to see if you were bleeding regularly.

Only China did it with the opposite intentions ... to prove you weren't pregnant.