The Roe Countdown

When will Roe v Wade be overturned

  • Before 31 December 2020

    Votes: 20 18.3%
  • Before 31 December 2022

    Votes: 27 24.8%
  • Before 31 December 2024

    Votes: 9 8.3%
  • SCOTUS will not pick a case up

    Votes: 16 14.7%
  • SCOTUS will pick it up and decline to overturn

    Votes: 37 33.9%

  • Total voters
    109
Status
Not open for further replies.
Similar tactic, different context (but related —ie. same general context of social conservatism):
https://twitter.com/ErinInTheMorn/status/1501314842992467975

Yes, these states are delivering the goods for the right wing base, codifying into law more conservative social hierarchies across the board. Between loosening restrictions on when lethal force can be used, controlling reproduction and women's bodies, criminalizing anything but heterosexual expression, and a full assault on any critical teaching of American history, the trend is quite clear. The right is rejecting the very notion of a secular, pluralistic society.

Jamelle Bouie was on the podcast "Know your Enemy" and they discuss the common denominator of these kinds of laws (among other things).

https://know-your-enemy-1682b684.simplecast.com/episodes/a-second-civil-war-w-jamelle-bouie-hx_yUg_d
 
Last edited:
Yes, these states are delivering the goods for the right wing base, codifying into law more conservative social hierarchies across the board. Between loosening restrictions on when lethal force can be used, controlling reproduction and women's bodies, criminalizing anything but heterosexual expression, and a full assault on any critical teaching of American history, the trend is quite clear. The right is rejecting the very notion of a secular, pluralistic society.

Jamelle Bouie was on the podcast "Know your Enemy" and they discuss the common denominator of these kinds of laws (among other things).

https://know-your-enemy-1682b684.simplecast.com/episodes/a-second-civil-war-w-jamelle-bouie-hx_yUg_d
They're risking making these states "no-go zones" for sane people, including their own residents.
 

Attachments

  • FNibRusXMAAOMkO.jpg
    FNibRusXMAAOMkO.jpg
    60.2 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/03/idaho-abortion-ban-texas.html

On Wednesday afternoon, a bill banning abortions performed after about six weeks of pregnancy became law in Idaho. The state is the first to approve a copycat law modeled after the Texas measure that has forced thousands of people to cross state lines for abortion procedures—or give birth to a child against their will—if they do not wish to be pregnant.


Though he signed the bill into law, Idaho Gov. Brad Little, a Republican, expressed concerns that it may not survive judicial scrutiny. “While I support the pro-life policy in this legislation, I fear the novel civil enforcement mechanism will in short order be proven both unconstitutional and unwise,” he wrote in a letter to Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin.


Little is referring to the law’s creation of bounties on abortion providers. Like the Texas ban, the Idaho law relies on private citizens, not the state, to enforce it through the threat of ruinous financial penalties. When the Idaho law takes effect in 30 days, anyone who performs an abortion after the detection of fetal cardiac activity can be sued for at least $20,000 by “the father of the preborn child, a grandparent of the preborn child, a sibling of the preborn child, or an aunt or uncle of the preborn child.”


Each one of those members of the patient’s family (and the patient herself) will be able to collect a minimum of $20,000, plus legal fees, from the medical professional who terminates a pregnancy. The threat of such lawsuits will be severe enough to end legal abortion in Idaho after six weeks of pregnancy, as the broader Texas law—which allows any civilian to sue any person who “aids or abets” an abortion—has done since it took effect in September.

Idaho lawmakers have praised Texas for pioneering that bounty system, which has been effectively endorsed by both the Supreme Court and the Texas Supreme Court. If the state is not involved in enforcing the law, the courts say, the courts cannot stop it. “Texas’ clever, private course of action did good,” Rep. Steven Harris, the Idaho bill’s co-sponsor, told the New York Times.


The Idaho law allows an exception for abortions performed in cases of rape or incest, but only if the pregnant survivor files a police report. And even if she does, her rapist’s family members would still be able to sue her abortion provider—making abortions in such cases too risky for most, if not all, providers to perform. The law’s exception for medical emergencies only kicks in when a pregnant person is at immediate risk of death or “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”
[snip]
 
Last edited:
Which states would that be? I expect that any state that even allows an abortion very near birth requires that it be medically necessary for the mother, not elective.

Before we talk about how theoretically a "medically necessary" designation could be applied too easily, are there any actual cases where you would argue it was so? Or is this only a supposition?

How many medically unnecessary late-term abortions are occurring to be prevented by this?
 
Which states would that be? I expect that any state that even allows an abortion very near birth requires that it be medically necessary for the mother, not elective.


Yes, one would reasonably expect that to be the case...but it is not.

There are seven states with no restrictions on term limits. Start with Vermont laws:

It is legal for an abortion to be performed in Vermont at any stage of pregnancy for any reason or for no reason.


https://www.findlaw.com/state/vermont-law/vermont-abortion-laws.html
 
Last edited:
Something worth noting:

"No abortion providers in Vermont perform elective abortions in the third trimester," it says.

Lucy Leriche, the vice president of public policy at Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, said the only time when a woman might get an abortion that late in their pregnancy would be "under really severe circumstances for health of mother or because the viability of pregnancy is at risk."

Doctors who do carry out elective procedures that late in pregnancy, she added, would face dire professional consequences for violating their licensure and committing medical malpractice.

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...proposed-vermont-law-allow-abortions-right-m/

How important is it to outlaw something that already isn't done, and that doctors are already professionally enjoined from doing?
 
Last edited:
Something worth noting:



https://www.politifact.com/factchec...proposed-vermont-law-allow-abortions-right-m/

How important is it to outlaw something that already isn't done, and that doctors are already professionally enjoined from doing?

What these forced birth laws really do is play fast and loose with what is considered "elective", to the point of forcing women to go through with dangerous pregnancies far longer than is medically advisable resulting in worse outcomes.
 
Last edited:
Believe me, someone will do anything for a price. It might not make the news, believe it or not. And some people are simply demented. And, when they do it, you can't prosecute. Tell me why it should be legal.

If price is the only thing stopping someone from doing it, what makes you think a law would?
 
Believe me, someone will do anything for a price. It might not make the news, believe it or not. And some people are simply demented. And, when they do it, you can't prosecute. Tell me why it should be legal.
It should be legal because the government does not have a "compelling interest" in the matter.

Even in the presence of a compelling interest, many of these laws don't even remotely pretend to acknowledge the concept of "least restrictive means."

Sent from my SM-N970U1 using Tapatalk
 
Which states would that be? I expect that any state that even allows an abortion very near birth requires that it be medically necessary for the mother, not elective.

The term "elective" when used with surgery doesn't mean "optional", it means "can be scheduled at a particular time and date". The news media, politicians, and people on messageboards sometimes don't grasp that when quoting medical publications. "Elective surgery" is an industry term with a particular meaning in healthcare.
 
Believe me, someone will do anything for a price. It might not make the news, believe it or not. And some people are simply demented. And, when they do it, you can't prosecute. Tell me why it should be legal.

If price is the only thing stopping someone from doing it, what makes you think a law would?

That wasn't the question. The question was, why should it be legal?
 
Last edited:
That wasn't the question. The question was, why should it be legal?

To avoid legal obstacles that might kill women. What part of "the women who get these things really need them and are in dire circumstances" don't you get?

The women that have these aren't throwing wild late term abortion parties. They are experiencing the death of a loved one they haven't even had a chance to see yet.
 
okay, so the question is: "why would it be illegal?"
I mean, why is there a need for a law, if no one is doing it, and those who might won't be deterred?

You haven't given a reason for why it should be legal, to start with.

You are saying, ultimately, "If someone aborts a healthy full-term fetus, for any reason, right before the moment of birth, it should be an entirely legal action".

Do you condemn or support the law allowing for this?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom