• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

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

I know. That said, there was obvious intent in the new law.

Do you really believe a bunch of pro-life legislators put forward a bill that allowed abortions for the first 15 weeks? According to the sponsor, and the bill itself, that's a no:

The bill to create a 15-week ban did not include language overturning the old law. Former Sen. Nancy Barto, who sponsored the 2022 bill, said that was intentional. In fact, she pointed to a legislative intent clause in the bill that explicitly affirms the validity of the 1864 ban.

That clause said the new law did not “repeal, by implication or otherwise, [the old law], or any other applicable state law regulating or restricting abortion.”

A few of the judges "discovered" the intent to repeal hidden somewhere, but this appears to be confirmation bias at best and pretension at worst.

That article goes on to note that the (few) Republican legislators upset about the ruling are in competitive races. It will be interesting to see if there are enough of those Republicans to form a majority with the Democrats to get the old law repealed. Long-term, the ballot initiative should settle the matter, and in the meanwhile, the (Democrat) Attorney General has pledged not to prosecute.

The purpose of the 2022 law was to set up a test case for the Supreme Court, not to legalize abortion for the first 15 weeks of a pregnancy.
 
Last edited:
That article goes on to note that the (few) Republican legislators upset about the ruling are in competitive races.

Ah. That's why they're saying they're upset. If they win their races then suddenly they'll be just okay with the law as is, will of the people, Jesus, conscience, etc etc.
 
Ah. That's why they're saying they're upset. If they win their races then suddenly they'll be just okay with the law as is, will of the people, Jesus, conscience, etc etc.

Quite a few Arizona Republicans are facing a fate worse than death: losing an election. They've earned it. Professing pro-life beliefs for a Republican was easy under Roe, because a) it didn't matter a hill of beans, and b) all the passion was on that side. They have sown the wind, now they must reap the whirlwind.
 
I expect the Arizona initiative which effectively would bring back the rules of Roe v Wade to be on the ballot in Arizona come November. It is currently gathering signatures.
 
I expect the Arizona initiative which effectively would bring back the rules of Roe v Wade to be on the ballot in Arizona come November. It is currently gathering signatures.

It's actually more liberal than Roe. Viability (about 24 weeks) and for physical or mental health of the mother.

They currently have over 500K signatures, and need about 380K. I believe they will be collecting them until July.
 

Among Idaho's abortion ban: "The law also has a fetal non-viability provision, meaning that even if a fetus dies in utero, the pregnancy must still be carried to term unless doing so would also kill the mother."
"Idaho’s law is so narrow that it only allows physicians to perform an abortion when death is imminent. Those added delays could leave patients with long-term health conditions such as uterine hemorrhage (requiring a hysterectomy) or kidney failure that requires lifelong dialysis — if the procedure is performed in time to save their lives in the first place."

Well, Ms. Smith, the bad news is that your 5 month fetus is dead. But, the good news is that you get to carry it for four more months while it slowly rots inside of you. Hopefully, you won't get sepsis, but if you do and are at death's door, we'll go ahead and allow an abortion. No one can ever say we don't care about a woman'shealth life.

What the hell is wrong with these people?
 
What the hell is wrong with these people?

Hey, sometimes when you're "pro-life" you have to destroy some lives in the process.

I'm not sure how a policy that will, not might, will kill and harm women, making some infertile, is conducive to "life," but I'm not privy to their deeper understanding of what God wants.
 
It's actually more liberal than Roe. Viability (about 24 weeks) and for physical or mental health of the mother.

They currently have over 500K signatures, and need about 380K. I believe they will be collecting them until July.

IIRC, Roe allowed abortions in the first two trimesters and in the third if it endangered the life of the woman.
 
https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/arizona-1864-abortion-ban-repeal-senate-rcna150214

The vote was 16 - 14 with two Republicans crossing the floor to vote with Democrats.

Governor Katie Hobbs will sign it.

Excellent. It's disgusting that 14 Republicans would vote to keep a law punishing those who would provide safe abortions to impregnated children, victims of rape or incest, or even carrying a dead or unviable fetus. But such is the state of the extremist GOP today.

Thank goodness for the Democrats and those two Republicans.

The 1864 law:

"A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years."
 
Excellent. It's disgusting that 14 Republicans would vote to keep a law punishing those who would provide safe abortions to impregnated children, victims of rape or incest, or even carrying a dead or unviable fetus. But such is the state of the extremist GOP today.

Thank goodness for the Democrats and those two Republicans.

The 1864 law:

"A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years."

There is about a month between the time the 1800s abortion ban becomes law again and when the new law legalizing abortion takes affect. How are they going to deal with that?
 
There is about a month between the time the 1800s abortion ban becomes law again and when the new law legalizing abortion takes affect. How are they going to deal with that?

To me it would make sense to drag heels so that no prosecutions are brought in that narrow time window.

I fear however that activist prosecutors and judges will seek to make use of their limited time to make some high profile examples.
 
There is about a month between the time the 1800s abortion ban becomes law again and when the new law legalizing abortion takes affect. How are they going to deal with that?

The AZ AG Kris Mayes is asking the AZ Supreme court for a 90 day delay. Not sure what the rationale is, but since 2 of the 4 jurists that said the 1864 law was just fine are up for "retainment" on the ballot, the pundits around here think they will grant the delay.
 
Louisiana Gov. Landry has signed a new law to take effect Oct. 1 making the two drugs that induce abortions, mifepristone and misoprostol, "controlled and dangerous substances".
Opponents of the bill included many physicians who said the drugs have other critical reproductive health care uses, and that changing the classification could make it harder to prescribe the medications. Supporters of the bill said it would protect expectant mothers from coerced abortions, though they cited only one example of that happening, in the state of Texas.
The bill began as a measure to create the crime of “coerced criminal abortion by means of fraud.” An amendment adding the abortion drugs to the Schedule IV classification of Louisiana's Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law was pushed by Sen. Thomas Pressly, a Republican from Shreveport and the main sponsor of the bill.

“Requiring an abortion inducing drug to be obtained with a prescription and criminalizing the use of an abortion drug on an unsuspecting mother is nothing short of common-sense," Landry said in a statement. Current Louisiana law already requires a prescription for both drugs and makes it a crime to use them to induce an abortion, in most cases. The bill would make it harder to obtain the pills. Other Schedule IV drugs include the opioid tramadol and a group of depressants known as benzodiazepines.

The classification would require doctors to have a specific license to prescribe the drugs, and the drugs would have to be stored in certain facilities that in some cases could end up being located far from rural clinics.
In addition to inducing abortions, mifepristone and misoprostol have other common uses, such as treating miscarriages, inducing labor and stopping hemorrhaging.

More than 200 doctors in the state signed a letter to lawmakers warning that the measure could produce a "barrier to physicians' ease of prescribing appropriate treatment" and cause unnecessary fear and confusion among both patients and doctors. The physicians warn that any delay to obtaining the drugs could lead to worsening outcomes in a state that has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the country.

This is just another example of extremists making it virtually impossible for women to get an abortion under the guise of "protecting" them. What would be the requirements for a doctor to obtain the "specific license"?
 
This is just another example of extremists making it virtually impossible for women to get an abortion under the guise of "protecting" them. What would be the requirements for a doctor to obtain the "specific license"?

Not practicing in the state of Louisiana.
 
This isn't a big deal. I've heard from several "conservatives" and Republicans in the forum that liberals and progressives are just being hyperbolic when they say Republicans are trying to ban abortion. They're only helping woman be safe and helping those same women realize that they belong in the kitchen, pregnant and barefoot.
 
From https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/31/texas-supreme-court-zurawski-abortion/

The Texas Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the most significant challenge to Texas’ new abortion laws yet, ruling Friday that the medical exceptions in the law were broad enough to withstand constitutional challenge.

The case, Zurawski v. Texas, started with five women arguing the state’s near-total abortion laws stopped them from getting medical care for their complicated pregnancies. In the year plus it took to move through the court system, the case has grown to include 20 women and two doctors.

In August, a Travis County judge issued a temporary injunction that allowed Texans with complicated pregnancies to get an abortion if their doctor made a “good faith judgment” that it was necessary. The Texas Office of the Attorney General appealed.

The Texas Supreme Court overturned that ruling Friday, saying it “departed from the law as written without constitutional justification.” While the opinion was unanimous, Justice Brett Busby issued a concurring opinion that left the door open to a broader challenge to the law.
 
You couldn't pay me to live in Texas.

What do you know? The Texas GOP has enshrined zygotal personhood in their party platform.

See https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/texas-gop-abortion-platform.html

Plank 35 of the Texas GOP party platform said:
Equal Protection for the Preborn: We urge lawmakers to enact legislation to abolish abortion by immediately securing the right to life and equal protection of the laws to all preborn children from the moment of fertilization, because abortion violates the United States Constitution by denying such persons the equal protection of the law.
 
Remember when the GOP and Trump's SC nominees claimed R v W was established law?

The Senate voted Wednesday to block a bill to create a federal right to contraception access after many Republicans said they opposed the legislation as unnecessary and government overreach.

The Democratic bill — intended to put Republicans on the spot in an election year on their unpopular positions on reproductive rights — would have prevented states from passing laws that limit access to contraception, including hormonal birth control and intrauterine devices. The measure failed to reach the 60 votes it needed to proceed, after all but two of the chamber’s Republicans voted against it.
(WAPO)

Yep, we have zero reason to believe that the right wing won't go after a woman's freedom of choice to use contraception!
Think of the unfertilized eggs being murdered every month!
 
Remember when the GOP and Trump's SC nominees claimed R v W was established law?

(WAPO)

Yep, we have zero reason to believe that the right wing won't go after a woman's freedom of choice to use contraception!
Think of the unfertilized eggs being murdered every month!

You have to love the irony of Republicans calling an effort to protect the rights they’re trying to take away “government overreach”.
 
Tim "Anal Polyp" Scott again tries to sidestep a direct question regarding his vote against the right to contraceptive bill put forth by the Dems. Ask by Brett Baier on FOX why a nay vote is not a bad position for the Republicans:

"This is just a shame that the Democrats are willing to try to politicize whether or not women have access to contraceptive. The bottom line is they absolutely do and that will continue. The question is why Democrats continue to take the most extreme position on abortion in the country but voted for abortion up until the day of birth."

And women absolutely had the right to have an abortion as stated by the Supreme Court 50 years ago and that continued, right Tim? Thank goodness the Republicans never politicized that!

What Dems have voted for the right to an abortion "up until the day of birth"? No woman has an abortion up until the day of birth because they GIVE BIRTH, you moron.

Tim Scott is revealing himself to be a true Trump mini-me: a liar and opportunist.
 
This went the correct way but not for reassuring reasons.

From https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-abortion-pill-decision-06-13-24#h_a032692f52ce82041dc3e5e64b9fa32b :
What we're covering here
  • Today’s ruling: The Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s approach to regulating the abortion pill mifepristone with a ruling that will continue to allow the pills to be mailed to patients without an in-person doctor’s visit. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion for a unanimous court.
  • Why this matters: The ruling is a significant setback for the anti-abortion movement in what was the first major Supreme Court case on reproductive rights since the court’s conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. The appeal was filed by anti-abortion doctors who said their practices have been affected because they must treat women who had complications from the drug.
  • What groups have said: The FDA and outside medical groups have stressed that mifepristone is safe. The doctors have faced scrutiny over whether they have been harmed in a way that gives them standing to sue.

This in no way means that abortifacient access is safe from this activist court or from other threats (ie. if Project 2025 get implemented, the FDA will likely get stacked with political operatives rather than technocratic subject matter experts).
 
Back
Top Bottom