The Roe Countdown

[theprestige]

What gets me is that it seems both premature and also absurdly ad hoc and reactionary.

Progressives have been saying for decades that conservative judges were going to do this. But now they're reacting with utter surprise that it's happening. Like they're shocked that these jurists aren't standing by whatever they implied in their nomination hearings.

You'd think that with fifty years to prepare, they'd have shored up abortion rights in state law across the country. But no. Apparently it's a mad scramble to figure out what to do next. Did they not see this coming? Because they've been talking like they totally saw this coming.

 

[autumn1971]

The point is that third term abortions in extremis are a red herring. Invoked to avoid discussing the real controversy: abortions of convenience.

You just demonstrated the point in practice. Forget about the third trimester for a moment. Should Meadmaker's scenario be legal?

First and second trimester abortions should be legal and nobody’s business but the women who have chosen to have one.

After the second trimester legislatures can make laws to limit reasons to have an abortion.

And they have, so I’m really confused by Meadmaker’s questions. The Supreme Court decided that abortion is a right under several clauses of the Constitution and legislatures filled in the third trimester details.

 

[theprestige]

First and second trimester abortions should be legal and nobody’s business but the women who have chosen to have one.

After the second trimester legislatures can make laws to limit reasons to have an abortion.

And they have, so I’m really confused by Meadmaker’s questions. The Supreme Court decided that abortion is a right under several clauses of the Constitution and legislatures filled in the third trimester details.

Does your idea of right and wrong, of what rights people do and do not have, begin and end with court rulings? If so, the coming reversal of Roe should suit you just fine.

 

[Meadmaker]

First and second trimester abortions should be legal and nobody’s business but the women who have chosen to have one.

After the second trimester legislatures can make laws to limit reasons to have an abortion.

And they have, so I’m really confused by Meadmaker’s questions. The Supreme Court decided that abortion is a right under several clauses of the Constitution and legislatures filled in the third trimester details.

Under the proposed Michigan amendment, the legislature would be able to limit reasons to have abortion, but they could not do so when it impacts the mental health of the pregnant woman.

In practice, does that mean if someone says they are stressed at the prospect of having a baby, they can have a late term abortion, regardless of what the legislature says?

I'm not sure of the answer to that question, but I know that the right wingers will say that under the proposed Michigan constitutional amendment, the answer will be "yes". In other words, they will say that in practice, abortions will be legal until birth.

Abortion supporters will have to be prepared to respond to that argument. I know that that argument will convince some people to vote no on the ballot initiative. I just don't know how many.

 

[Bob001]

.....
You'd think that with fifty years to prepare, they'd have shored up abortion rights in state law across the country. But no. Apparently it's a mad scramble to figure out what to do next. Did they not see this coming? Because they've been talking like they totally saw this coming.

Once the SC decided Roe v. Wade, the states had no reason to pass laws to "shore up" a Constitutionally guaranteed right, any more than the states pass laws to protect freedom of the press. And the states where protection for abortion rights is most needed are the ones where such laws would have been least likely to pass anyway.

 

[theprestige]

Once the SC decided Roe v. Wade, the states had no reason to pass laws to "shore up" a Constitutionally guaranteed right, any more than the states pass laws to protect freedom of the press. And the states where protection for abortion rights is most needed are the ones where such laws would have been least likely to pass anyway.

Cool story. Now do the paragraph you snipped. The one where you've known for decades that it was only a matter of time, and that the Roe protections wouldn't hold against a conservative majority on the bench.

 

[bruto]

What gets me is that it seems both premature and also absurdly ad hoc and reactionary.

Progressives have been saying for decades that conservative judges were going to do this. But now they're reacting with utter surprise that it's happening. Like they're shocked that these jurists aren't standing by whatever they implied in their nomination hearings.

You'd think that with fifty years to prepare, they'd have shored up abortion rights in state law across the country. But no. Apparently it's a mad scramble to figure out what to do next. Did they not see this coming? Because they've been talking like they totally saw this coming.

Point taken about "across the country," but it's not as if nobody thought of this either. As some have pointed out the states most in need of such laws are probably those in which such laws are unlikely to pass. Here in Vermont there is a state law, and come November there will be a vote on a Constitutional amendment to back it up.

e.t.a. actually, Vermont is not alone in this. Here is a handy map outlining the different state laws. A large number have "trigger laws" that will take effect if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, though. But if the November referendum carries, we will be the first state to have abortion rights in the Constitution.

 

[Bob001]

Cool story. Now do the paragraph you snipped. The one where you've known for decades that it was only a matter of time, and that the Roe protections wouldn't hold against a conservative majority on the bench.

Like I said, the states where protection for right to choose was most needed would not have passed such laws. And California, New York etc. never needed them. And a federal law would have been blocked by the filibuster, as it is now.

 

[Warp12]

First and second trimester abortions should be legal and nobody’s business but the women who have chosen to have one.

After the second trimester legislatures can make laws to limit reasons to have an abortion. And they have, so I’m really confused by Meadmaker’s questions. The Supreme Court decided that abortion is a right under several clauses of the Constitution and legislatures filled in the third trimester details.

Not every state limits 3rd trimester abortions. For example, in Vermont you can get one for any reason, or no reason. It would be difficult perhaps to find a physician to do it. Then again, you don't need to be a doctor to legally perform an abortion in that state, either. There are seven states without term limits on abortion.

With these kooky laws., it is no wonder there is a push by some to overturn Roe. It is like liberals went crazy with relaxed legislature, in some cases.

 

[Suddenly]

What gets me is that it seems both premature and also absurdly ad hoc and reactionary.

Progressives have been saying for decades that conservative judges were going to do this. But now they're reacting with utter surprise that it's happening. Like they're shocked that these jurists aren't standing by whatever they implied in their nomination hearings.

You'd think that with fifty years to prepare, they'd have shored up abortion rights in state law across the country. But no. Apparently it's a mad scramble to figure out what to do next. Did they not see this coming? Because they've been talking like they totally saw this coming.

Some notes:

This isn't the progressives doing this. We've been screaming in the wilderness for some time. The idea that the people calling the shots in the Democratic party are progressives is a right wing fever dream. These people would sooner threaten their own children than their donors.

I could come to grips with their past incompetence if they actually had a realistic plan to get out of this, but they don't because that would probably need labor organization as a base building block and there is no way that is happening because that's the one thing that would scare the money away.

 

[Ziggurat]

And a federal law would have been blocked by the filibuster, as it is now.

The current senate bill wasn't blocked by filibuster. It couldn't even get a majority, it was 51 to 49 against. If it had a majority, then a filibuster might have been used to stop it, but no filibuster was even needed to stop it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Not every state limits 3rd trimester abortions. For example, in Vermont you can get one for any reason, or no reason. It would be difficult perhaps to find a physician to do it. Then again, you don't need to be a doctor to legally perform an abortion in that state, either. There are seven states without term limits on abortion.

With these kooky laws., it is no wonder there is a push by some to overturn Roe. It is like liberals went crazy with relaxed legislature, in some cases.

Damn, that is pretty extreme. To let women have complete freedom over their medical status and decisions is crazy.

 

[Suddenly]

Once the SC decided Roe v. Wade, the states had no reason to pass laws to "shore up" a Constitutionally guaranteed right, any more than the states pass laws to protect freedom of the press. And the states where protection for abortion rights is most needed are the ones where such laws would have been least likely to pass anyway.

Once the court issued Casey these states should have woken the **** up and done it if not only to counter Casey.

 

[Shalamar]

Damn, that is pretty extreme. To let women have complete freedom over their medical status and decisions is crazy.

Conservatives (even the ones on this forum!) Are celebrating Big Government and the loss of rights and freedoms.

 

[johnny karate]

Unfair prosecutions are nothing new, and are not unique to the issue of abortion. I don't see this as fundamentally changing anything.

That doesn't undermine my point. In fact, it bolsters it.

If we acknowledge that lawless prosecutions for non-existent crimes exist and Republican law enforcement officials are willing to carry them out in the name of their ideology, then we have acknowledged that, if abortion is made illegal, women being arrested and charged with crimes for abortions they had prior to that isn't baseless fear-mongering.

It's a legitimate concern based on the observable behavior of Republicans.

Your model doesn't really work. A number of these laws explicitly provide no punishment at all to the women who obtain illegal abortions, only to the abortion providers.

Current Texas law explicitly provides no punishment at all to women who obtain abortions.

They still arrested a woman who got an a abortion and charged her with murder.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I gotta say "We'll the law doesn't specifically let us do the things we are doing" is a weird flex in a sea of weird flexes.

 

[johnny karate]

What gets me is that it seems both premature and also absurdly ad hoc and reactionary.

Progressives have been saying for decades that conservative judges were going to do this. But now they're reacting with utter surprise that it's happening. Like they're shocked that these jurists aren't standing by whatever they implied in their nomination hearings.

You'd think that with fifty years to prepare, they'd have shored up abortion rights in state law across the country. But no. Apparently it's a mad scramble to figure out what to do next. Did they not see this coming? Because they've been talking like they totally saw this coming.

I don't necessarily disagree with your larger point, but I definitely enjoy that you acknowledged Republicans are unscrupulous liars while making it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"It's your fault they lied to you" is another really, really weird flex.

 

[johnny karate]

Not every state limits 3rd trimester abortions. For example, in Vermont you can get one for any reason, or no reason. It would be difficult perhaps to find a physician to do it. Then again, you don't need to be a doctor to legally perform an abortion in that state, either. There are seven states without term limits on abortion.

With these kooky laws., it is no wonder there is a push by some to overturn Roe. It is like liberals went crazy with relaxed legislature, in some cases.

Yes, liberals certainly are out of control not doing the things that your fevered imagination thinks they're doing.

And by the way, if what you allege was really the concern for Republicans (spoiler alert: it's not), then the solution wouldn't be to ban abortion entirely, it would be to ban that particular aspect of abortion.

Your argument fails in both accuracy and logic.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again it's another case of Liberal reality being expected to get weighed against Republican lies.

How many discussions in society right now boil down to:

One Side: Can we do something to solve or address or mitigate this actual problem that's actually happening in the real world right now?
Other Side: No, we first have to weight it against our lies, conspiracy theories, and crazy outlandish insane scenarios we can dream up that might happen.