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

[acbytesla]

A State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. ... We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

— Roe, 410 U.S. at 154.

From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state's interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health.

Legally, as in does not violate womens' Constitutional rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Dodge...dodge....dodge.

Where does it say moral?

Where does it say Constitutional?

Also, you haven't addressed that getting an abortion is an act of self defense. That it is an act of protecting oneself of a threat to a woman's health and well being.

 

[Hercules56]

Dodge...dodge....dodge.

Where does it say moral?

Where does it say Constitutional?

Also, you haven't addressed that getting an abortion is an act of self defense. That it is an act of protecting oneself of a threat to a woman's health and well being.

When the United States supreme court declares that something is legal, that includes legal under our constitution. Duhhhhh....

Yes if a cesarean will harm the mother and the only safe option is abortion then I guess you have to do an abortion.

However abortions and cesareans are both unnatural procedures that can end up harming a woman. Although one procedure can save the life of the fetus while the other terminates it.

 

[acbytesla]

When the United States supreme court declares that something is legal, that includes legal under our constitution. Duhhhhh....

Yes if a cesarean will harm the mother and the only safe option is abortion then I guess you have to do an abortion.

However abortions and cesareans are both unnatural procedures that can end up harming a woman. Although one procedure can save the life of the fetus while the other terminates it.

And i don't care. It's still forcing a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want. A c-section leaves a nasty scar.

Also a c-section at 28 weeks may very well not save the fetus.

 

[Hercules56]

And i don't care. It's still forcing a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want. A c-section leaves a nasty scar.

Also a c-section at 28 weeks may very well not save the fetus.

Yes the government would be forcing her to get a C-section instead of an abortion. But she is clearly willing to engage in an unnatural medical procedure to remove the child. One method kills the child the other method does not.

I would only support this if the fetus is viable and healthy and if the C-section would not hurt her.

 

[gnome]

You seem to be under the impression that a post-viability procedure (other than a C-section) must end the life of the fetus. Is that accurate? Checking on a couple of links it seems like it's on usually on the physician to decide (with attendant consequences should they make a bad call).

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/

“Viability is reached when, in the judgment of the attending physician on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus’ sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support. Because this point may differ with each pregnancy, neither the legislature nor the courts may proclaim one of the elements entering into the ascertainment of viability – be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor – as the determinant of when the State has a compelling interest in the life or health of the fetus.” Colautti v. Franklin (1979)

An example from the Louisiana department of health:

https://ldh.la.gov/page/2427

If an unborn child is viable, the physician must take all reasonable steps in keeping with good medical practice to preserve the life and health of the unborn child, provided it does not pose an increased risk to the life or health of the woman.

If the baby is removed alive, the attending physicians have the legal obligation to take all reasonable steps necessary to maintain the life and health of the child.

If an abortion is performed after the doctor has determined that the fetus is viable, the following steps must be taken:

The physician who terminates the pregnancy must certify the medical reasons making performance of the abortion necessary and the probable health consequences if the abortion is not performed;

The physician must select a procedure that is most likely to allow the unborn child to live; and

A second physician must be in attendance to provide immediate medical care to the child born as a result of the pregnancy termination.

Medical Emergencies
The physician is not required to use the abortion method that would provide the best opportunity for the baby to live if that physician determines in his or her medical judgment that use of that method poses a significantly greater risk to the woman's life or permanent damage to any of the woman's major bodily functions. In the case of a medical emergency, a physician is also not required to comply with any condition listed above which, in the physician's medical judgment, he or she is prevented from satisfying because of the medical emergency.

If an unborn child is viable, the physician must take all reasonable steps in keeping with good medical practice to preserve the life and health of the unborn child, provided it does not pose an increased risk to the life or health of the woman.
If the baby is removed alive, the attending physicians have the legal obligation to take all reasonable steps necessary to maintain the life and health of the child.
If an abortion is performed after the doctor has determined that the fetus is viable, the following steps must be taken:
the physician who terminates the pregnancy must certify the medical reasons making performance of the abortion necessary and the probable health consequences if the abortion is not performed;
the physician must select a procedure that is most likely to allow the unborn child to live; and
a second physician must be in attendance to provide immediate medical care to the child born as a result of the pregnancy termination.
Medical Emergencies
The physician is not required to use the abortion method that would provide the best opportunity for the baby to live if that physician determines in his or her medical judgment that use of that method poses a significantly greater risk to the woman's life or permanent damage to any of the woman's major bodily functions. In the case of a medical emergency, a physician is also not required to comply with any condition listed above which, in the physician's medical judgment, he or she is prevented from satisfying because of the medical emergency.

Louisiana is a state where abortion is mostly illegal. However it seems when abortion occurs anyway, it is expected for the doctor to preserve the life of the fetus if that is a medical option, except when doing so would be more harmful to the mother.

That seems reasonable to me, and makes sense even for a state where there is no statutory restriction on length of term. If the question is viability, such requirements on the doctor seem to suit that interest without a separate law restricting the abortion itself.

 

[Parsman]

Yes the government would be forcing her to get a C-section instead of an abortion. But she is clearly willing to engage in an unnatural medical procedure to remove the child. One method kills the child the other method does not.

I would only support this if the fetus is viable and healthy and if the C-section would not hurt her.

The usual - when abortions are carried out they are not on children but on foetuses and usually unless there is very urgent life threatening issues for the mother. Using the word children is inexact and I believe is poisoning the well, often deliberately.

 

[bruto]

Nobody can force a woman to give birth, only nature can do that.

Take your objections up with Nature.

I suppose there's a bit of semantic wisdom there somewhere. But if a woman is already pregnant, the part of nature that is not that of the mother herself has been and gone, and if legal force is deployed to prevent any alternative to birth, then I would contend that the woman is being forced to give birth. A law with no force is no law at all. If you are to cite nature as the end point of rights, I think you could end up with some problems. Many things we take for granted as our rights and privileges in a civilized society are, after all, not found in nature.

Or, as Rosie in The African Queen put it, "Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put on this earth to rise above!"

 

[bruto]

A bit too late to edit, but I must also say that if one is inclined to compare an abortion with a C-section, I am inclined to suspect that the person so comparing has had neither.

 

[Stacyhs]

A bit too late to edit, but I must also say that if one is inclined to compare an abortion with a C-section, I am inclined to suspect that the person so comparing has had neither.

 

[thaiboxerken]

A bit too late to edit, but I must also say that if one is inclined to compare an abortion with a C-section, I am inclined to suspect that the person so comparing has had neither.

Your inclination assumes that the person making that argument is doing so in good faith. I believe most anti-abortion arguments are made with intentional lies, deception and misinformation.

 

[cosmicaug]

If we are in the 3rd Trimester and the fetus is healthy and viable, the govt will not allow an abortion unless its to save the life of the mother or protect her from severe physical injury..... but they will provide a free Cesarean and take custody of the child. Woman will not be forced to give birth or raise the kid. Society will take custody, give her free medical care after the procedure. The only caveat is she cannot terminate the fetus.

Both sides are happy. The child is allowed to live, the mother doesn't have to give birth or raise the child, both sides get what they want.

This is ludicrous, clearly not a good faith argument & gives you the worst of both sides. You now have a major violation of bodily autonomy (forced Cesarean) & a bunch of people with lifelong disabilities that would not even have come to be without this gross governmental intrusion or that would have been born healthy with an actual abortion ban. Pretty soon you'll have conservatives questioning why the foster care system is overburdened with handicapped children needing lifelong medical care and clamoring to find ways to kill them off for the savings (because, as long as they are not fetuses, that's cool).

 

[cosmicaug]

This is ludicrous, clearly not a good faith argument & gives you the worst of both sides. You now have a major violation of bodily autonomy (forced Cesarean) & a bunch of people with lifelong disabilities that would not even have come to be without this gross governmental intrusion or that would have been born healthy with an actual abortion ban. Pretty soon you'll have conservatives questioning why the foster care system is overburdened with handicapped children needing lifelong medical care and clamoring to find ways to kill them off for the savings (because, as long as they are not fetuses, that's cool).

But, other than that, give any woman who wants to abort a free Cesarean section and see if you can keep the fetus alive is a pretty good idea.

 

[catsmate]

Abortion rates up in the USA.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/24/us-abortion-rates-post-roe-v-wade

 

[cosmicaug]

Posting because in one of the old threads there was a discussion (if it can be called that) at some point about cybersecurity measures.

From https://jessica.substack.com/p/idahos-first-abortion-trafficking :

Idaho's first 'abortion trafficking' arrest

Last week, an Idaho teenager and his mother were arrested for bringing the teen’s girlfriend out-of-state for an abortion. The pair were charged with multiple felonies, including second degree kidnapping, for taking a minor under 16 years-old “with the intent to keep or conceal [her] from her custodial parent...by transporting the child out of the state for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.”

The 15 year-old, identified in court records as K.B., was living in Pocatello with her 18 year-old boyfriend Kaydn* and his mother, Rachael, when she became pregnant. In May, they brought her to Oregon, where K.B. received abortion medication. Idaho’s ‘abortion trafficking’ law went into effect that same month.

The investigation into the mother and son began shortly after K.B.’s mother reported to police that her daughter had been sexually assaulted. Though K.B. became sexually active when Kaydn was 17 years-old, he turned 18 during the course of their relationship; so in addition to the kidnapping charge, court documents show that he’s also been charged with rape and sexual exploitation of a child.

During this conversation with law enforcement, K.B.’s mother also reported that her daughter had been taken to Oregon for an abortion without parental permission. This sparked a far-reaching investigation that included accessing geolocation data to place the teenager at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Bend, and tracking her movement with Kaydn and Rachael from Idaho to Oregon. (A search warrant, for example, shows that law enforcement accessed the phones of all three, and found that they were pinging cell towers in the area of the clinic.)

[...]

It is unclear to me what they are saying was done to locate the people in question: whether they had a search warrant that located them in real time through phone pings or whether the warrant allowed police to access this information after the fact.


What I am finding noteworthy here is that the only defenses against this that can even have a chance to work are to travel without a cellphone; or to buy (and subsequently destroy) burner phones Saul Goodman style. This sort of approach to security was characterized as being so outrageously over the top that even suggesting it might be counterproductive.

 

[Stacyhs]

Posting because in one of the old threads there was a discussion (if it can be called that) at some point about cybersecurity measures.

From https://jessica.substack.com/p/idahos-first-abortion-trafficking :



It is unclear to me what they are saying was done to locate the people in question: whether they had a search warrant that located them in real time through phone pings or whether the warrant allowed police to access this information after the fact.


What I am finding noteworthy here is that the only defenses against this that can even have a chance to work are to travel without a cellphone; or to buy (and subsequently destroy) burner phones Saul Goodman style. This sort of approach to security was characterized as being so outrageously over the top that even suggesting it might be counterproductive.

Frightening! The right-wing is turning this country into 1984 Big Brother territory. Idaho is one of the most right-wing states in the country.

From my understanding, it wasn't in real time but they accessed their phone records afterward to see what cell towers they were pinging on the relevant dates.

 

[acbytesla]

Posting because in one of the old threads there was a discussion (if it can be called that) at some point about cybersecurity measures.

From https://jessica.substack.com/p/idahos-first-abortion-trafficking :

It is unclear to me what they are saying was done to locate the people in question: whether they had a search warrant that located them in real time through phone pings or whether the warrant allowed police to access this information after the fact.


What I am finding noteworthy here is that the only defenses against this that can even have a chance to work are to travel without a cellphone; or to buy (and subsequently destroy) burner phones Saul Goodman style. This sort of approach to security was characterized as being so outrageously over the top that even suggesting it might be counterproductive.

But the law is Constitutionally questionable. I'm not convinced that Idaho or any State has the right to restrict their citizens ability to travel. This certainly will be tested. My guess is that it will be struck down by the Ninth Circuit. At which point the State of Idaho will appeal to SCOTUS.

 

[Stacyhs]

But the law is Constitutionally questionable. I'm not convinced that Idaho or any State has the right to restrict their citizens ability to travel. This certainly will be tested. My guess is that it will be struck down by the Ninth Circuit. At which point the State of Idaho will appeal to SCOTUS.

I agree.

 

[bruto]

I agree.

And in the meantime, people will suffer, lives disrupted, finances ruined, privacy lost and rights soiled, and even if it's overturned the nuisance law will be a success for a while, though in the world we live in now even that paltry sliver of victory cannot be assumed. You think something is too stupid, too anti-democratic, too vile actually to happen? Think again. It's going to be a long winter.

 

[cosmicaug]

But the law is Constitutionally questionable. I'm not convinced that Idaho or any State has the right to restrict their citizens ability to travel. This certainly will be tested. My guess is that it will be struck down by the Ninth Circuit. At which point the State of Idaho will appeal to SCOTUS.

It seems that they were careful not to charge under that law (though it seems likely that they would not have charged were abortifacients not have been involved).

 

[catsmate]

But the law is Constitutionally questionable. I'm not convinced that Idaho or any State has the right to restrict their citizens ability to travel. This certainly will be tested. My guess is that it will be struck down by the Ninth Circuit. At which point the State of Idaho will appeal to SCOTUS.

And in the meantime people, mostly women, will suffer and die.