• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Roe v Wade overturned - this is some BS part II

smartcooky said:
Yeah, its not officially Catholic in the sense of it being the state religion, nonetheless...

"Estimates of the proportion of Catholics in 2020 range between 47% and 88% of France's population, with the higher figure including lapsed Catholics and "Catholic atheists". The Catholic Church in France is organised into 98 dioceses, which in 2012 were served by 7,000 sub-75 priests.[7] 80 to 90 priests are ordained every year, although the church would need eight times as many to compensate the number of priest deaths. Approximately 45,000 Catholic church buildings and chapels are spread out among 36,500 cities, towns, and villages in France, but a majority are no longer regularly used for mass. Notable churches of France include Notre Dame de Paris, Chartres Cathedral, Reims Cathedral, and Basilique du Sacre-Coeur, Eglise de la Madeleine, and Amiens Cathedral. Its national shrine, Lourdes, is visited by 5 million pilgrims yearly.[8] The capital city, Paris, is a major pilgrimage site for Catholics as well."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_France

So Catholicism is still pretty much the single, dominant religion in France. All the more remarkable that the vote was so hugely one-sided (780-72), with members of the far-right Reconquête Party comprising most of the 72 opposed.


NOTE: "Reconquête" translates to "Reconquest"... Make France Great Again?, Take back our country? Sounds familiar doesn't it? :eye-poppi
‎
‎
Click to expand...

While we definitely have officially secular countries which, in practice, have strong establishment of religion in many contexts, just having some level of religious cultural background is not enough to suggest that this is the case. As examples of these I would include Israel and Malaysia (and if the extremely dangerous Hindu nationalism continues it's current trend of getting stronger there, I could see India joining the list of the officially secular with strong religious establishment in a decade or two). On the other side of the coin, the opposite scenario of having an official established religion that is not accompanied in actual practice with strong establishment can be seen in a small number of countries (I'm thinking mostly in Scandinavia —although even there we seem to have a possible trend of the official government status going away).
 
Last edited:
cosmicaug said:
Yeah, that higher number (assuming it's even correct) is the Catholic church counting anyone who has ever been baptized. This is why the practice of official deconversion from the Catholic church (as in submitting formal paperwork to the Catholic church) gained some prominence in the memetic landscape about 15-20 years ago (the idea being that someone like Sinéad O'Connor, who converted to Islam, would have died a Catholic for the purposes of record keeping by the Catholic church without this formal renunciation —I'm not sure if she ever did this, it's just an example).

Of course, the proportion of people baptized in the Catholic church who have nothing to do with it and are either areligious, antireligious or simply not Catholic and members of a different religion who have actually filed such a formal request is infinitesimal. There is, allegedly, some practical implication in the sometimes even secular governments provide small benefits to religion and a larger one will get more benefits (so it can be in the interest of a religious group to portray itself as being larger, not just for PR purposes, but also for other practical reasons).

So yeah, I'm a Catholic by this metric as well (despite my actual viewpoint being something resembling strong atheism).
Click to expand...

The church actually did away with it, due to the fact that after it being publicised there were more than ten thousand official deconversions in Ireland over a six month period and many, many more worldwide. Now there's no way for you to officially deconvert from the church.
 
acbytesla said:
Such precision.

By that standard, I would be considered Catholic.

Christian nationalism is a last gasp attempt to prevent the continuing erosion of the power of superstition.​
Click to expand...
Anyone baptised, or confirmed, remains Catholic unless they defect.
 
The Atheist said:
Maybe we celebrating the removal of Roe - it might be a self-correcting issue.

https://amp.idahostatesman.com/living/health-fitness/article285521662.html

If the doctors all leave because of the insanity of newly-made abortion laws, sane people will move to a more liberal state and everyone left can **** up and die.
Click to expand...
It might take a while, or until global warming gets a little further, because most of the nice states to be in seem to be in the north where the weather is loathsome and half the year is dark and bleak. If you're not used to a Vermont winter, it's asking a lot.
 
The Atheist said:
Maybe we celebrating the removal of Roe - it might be a self-correcting issue.

https://amp.idahostatesman.com/living/health-fitness/article285521662.html

If the doctors all leave because of the insanity of newly-made abortion laws, sane people will move to a more liberal state and everyone left can **** up and die.
Click to expand...

From the article: "In July 2023, Idaho legislators disbanded the state’s Maternal Mortality Review Committee, a volunteer cohort of medical and public health experts that investigated the root causes of deaths during and shortly after pregnancy, making it the only state in the nation with no such maternal mortality review."


Christ, they're evil.
 
gabeygoat said:
From the article: "In July 2023, Idaho legislators disbanded the state’s Maternal Mortality Review Committee, a volunteer cohort of medical and public health experts that investigated the root causes of deaths during and shortly after pregnancy, making it the only state in the nation with no such maternal mortality review."


Christ, they're evil.
Click to expand...

Idaho is known for its extremist right-wing groups, the kind that hoards guns and food in case they have to hunker down cuz the gub'ment is coming to take away their freedoms.
 
bruto said:
It might take a while, or until global warming gets a little further, because most of the nice states to be in seem to be in the north where the weather is loathsome and half the year is dark and bleak. If you're not used to a Vermont winter, it's asking a lot.
Click to expand...

West Coast.:thumbsup:
 
Well, this could be fun (and by "fun" I mean horrible).

I did not even realize that the SCOTUS was hearing arguments for this today. This is the case of the nutjob Texas judge who ruled that the abortifacient, mifepristone, was wrongly approved by the FDA in a case that the Alliance Defending Freedom shopped around to this particular judge.

That Roberts seem to be telegraphing for the standing of the doctors that Alliance Defending Freedom picked as plaintiffs for this case seems concerning (Thomas & Alito would be expected to argue for this so that is not a surprise).


LIVE UPDATES
Supreme Court hears oral arguments on abortion pill case

Nevertheless, I imagine that this leading to the withdrawal of the mifepristone FDA approval would have to be exceedingly unlikely. I can't imagine even the current SCOTUS would want this. It is bad on so many levels that even this right wing activist court should want nothing to do with such an outcome (then again, all establishment voices were saying that the repeal of Roe v. Wade would never happen because the GOP didn't really want the baggage that comes with it and yet,... here we are).

Also, it obviously has implications that go way beyond abortion politics and way beyond the oversight of the FDA. A ruling in favor of the Alliance Defending Freedom would basically neuter all federal regulatory agencies. I don't think even today's GOP wants this (though I have no doubt that a strong minority of GOP politicians are salivating at the prospect). Judicial overreach, anyone?

Not that I am bringing up the broader implications in order to detract from the implications to women in the USA. This can only hurt women.

As to the follow-ups to an unfavorable ruling, there are several and none are good. The most obvious, is to legislate the approval directly which is a bad option if you think that regulatory agencies, once legislatively established, should mostly be left to do their job (assuming that the votes are there —and one would think there should be a small enough number of Democrat defectors and a large enough number of GOP defectors so that something like this might pass). Alternatively, the Democrats could feign impotence at what the GOP has wrought and cynically ride the outrage for the votes (also terrible). Alternatively, Biden could issue an executive order for temporary stay until such a time as a trying better fix has a better chance of succeeding or an executive order (assuming this is even constitutional which I doubt) to simply overrule the SCOTUS (an absolute disaster from the standpoint of separation of powers —much more so than the run of the mill overuse of executive orders that we have seen in all of the 21st century presidential administrations). Alternatively, the FDA approval process could be repeated to correct the deficits in the original approval (of course, since the original deficits here are that pro-abortion, anti-women's health nutjobs object to the approval of any abortifacient, I doubt that any correction is possible).
 
I think there is a real chance that the decision will go 6-3 or 7-2 in favour of banning mifepristone. Thoams and Alito would certainly oppose, I'm undecided about Coney-Barrett and Drunky McRapeface.

Even if this happens, and the right to obtain mifepristone prevails, don't expect states like Louisiana, Alabama and other states with misogynistic legislatures to take the result lying down. They will almost certainly try to game the system in order to work around any ruling... one of the ways would be for anyone who prescribes the drug to a woman, who then subsequently aborts a fetus, to be threatened with a murder charge. This would have a chilling effect even if the murder charge could never stick.
 
smartcooky said:
I think there is a real chance that the decision will go 6-3 or 7-2 in favour of banning mifepristone. Thoams and Alito would certainly oppose, I'm undecided about Coney-Barrett and Drunky McRapeface.

Even if this happens, and the right to obtain mifepristone prevails, don't expect states like Louisiana, Alabama and other states with misogynistic legislatures to take the result lying down. They will almost certainly try to game the system in order to work around any ruling... one of the ways would be for anyone who prescribes the drug to a woman, who then subsequently aborts a fetus, to be threatened with a murder charge. This would have a chilling effect even if the murder charge could never stick.
Click to expand...

I think you meant the other way around. I think it will be 7 to 2 or 6 to 3 against those trying to restrict access to mifepristone. And they will do it on standing. Alito is so pro-life that he will find any reason. Thomas too.
 
acbytesla said:
I think you meant the other way around. I think it will be 7 to 2 or 6 to 3 against those trying to restrict access to mifepristone. And they will do it on standing. Alito is so pro-life that he will find any reason. Thomas too.
Click to expand...


Oh, yeah, I misspoke. I think the MAGA Texas frootloop judge will be overturned.
 
smartcooky said:
I think there is a real chance that the decision will go 6-3 or 7-2 in favour of banning mifepristone. Thoams and Alito would certainly oppose, I'm undecided about Coney-Barrett and Drunky McRapeface.

Even if this happens, and the right to obtain mifepristone prevails, don't expect states like Louisiana, Alabama and other states with misogynistic legislatures to take the result lying down. They will almost certainly try to game the system in order to work around any ruling... one of the ways would be for anyone who prescribes the drug to a woman, who then subsequently aborts a fetus, to be threatened with a murder charge. This would have a chilling effect even if the murder charge could never stick.
Click to expand...

Perhaps check who they are holidaying with this year? As I've said before they really do need to wear their sponsorship deals on their robes - it would make it much easier for everyone to know how they will decide this season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom