The Roe Countdown

[JoeMorgue]

In general, I think the best way to persuade is to drop the hyperbole, and focus on the reality.

*Takes a shot, marks my Bingo card*

 

[Meadmaker]

Then there is this real world atrocity from Texas:

This is an interesting case, and what it shows is that legislators can pass really bad laws.


Under the Texas law in question, that situation, if described accurately, should have been a case where abortion should have been perfectly legal, under either Texas law or considering Roe v. Wade, which was, and is, still in effect.


However, state legislatures have been playing a game trying to dance around Roe v. Wade just enough that their laws aren't thrown out of court right away, but still present a challenge to Roe v. Wade, in the hopes of getting it overturned.

If the leak is accurate, and if no Justice has subsequently changed his mind, those days are about to end.

The problem in that situation is that the Texas law relied on a novel enforcement mechanism that basically allowed anyone to sue doctors, which would be a really big inconvenience, even if the doctor was going to win.

I believe that the law is unconstitutionally vague, and will be thrown out if it gets to the Supreme Court. And yes, I mean this Supreme Court.

I see two possible futures for Texas SB 8. Either the courts will rule it unconstitutional, or the Texas legislature will pass a new law after the opinion overturning Roe v. Wade is published. If the law is ruled unconstitutional, it will be because of the enforrement mechanism, and Texas will pass a new law with a more conventional enforcement mechanism.

 

[Meadmaker]

*Takes a shot, marks my Bingo card*

Well, yes. It's entirely predictable that I will say that the actual law matters, and that hyperbolic rhetoric which distorts reality is a bad thing. Drink up.

 

[TomB]

*Shrugs* I'd do it. Snip me and freeze some sperm if I ever need it for anything.

But even beyond the abortion debate there's way too much stupid macho male ego wrapped up in "fertility" as a concept. Too many chest puffing big pickup drivers who would feel like less of a man for shooting blanks.

But this is getting a little in the weeds, even for this debate and I'm not a massive fan of the whole "hardy hardy make men get vasectomies see how they like it" thing, even jokingly or hypothetically. Again "Men' are not the enemy here as demographic show.

The point of these comments, even though they are not meant to be serious, is that much of the anti-abortion argument points to women being able to avoid pregnancy by using responsible birth control. Actually, we had one poster on this thread that specifically put that idea forward several pages back.

Such things define unwanted pregnancy as an issue related to the negligence of women. Basically: The problem isn't that women can't get abortions, the problem is that women are negligent and get themselves into these situations.

What it completely ignores is that it takes the actions of two people (at least one willingly) for a pregnancy to occur and when an unwanted pregnancy happens, the responsibility for not using responsible birth control is mostly laid at the feet of the woman.

It's indisputable that the woman also bears the largest burden of an unwanted pregnancy. Not only because of what it does to her body, but socially as well. Beyond the obvious that for several months whenever she walks into a room or meets someone a portion of her private sexual history is on display (for which she will be judged), but also the interruption to school, career etc. (If your girlfriend is pregnant, it doesn't affect your job interview.)

The point of these jokes is to point out the inequity of consequence for mutual "negligence" or failure of birth control and how unacceptable men would find it if actions were taken to equalize the burden and consequence.

So I consider the jokes relevant as they illustrate a legitimate point.

But then, since the 80s, my position on abortion since the 80s has pretty much been along the line of: "I can't get pregnant, so I shouldn't get to decide."

I've modified that a little bit, taking inspiration from Meadmaker's position in the Thread of Doom: "I'm not directly affected. As long as most women, or even a significant proportion of them, want the right to choose regarding their bodily functions, I will support them."

 

[bruto]

If this hole is one of precedent & legal logic, you might be overstating its importance.

They will rule ideologically, and as needed when it comes up. Consistency in their legal rulings is simply not going to be that important. There is no 'well, they ruled this way when this one thing came up so therefore they are going to have to rule this other way when that other thing comes up later to remain consistent' happening here.

More important is originalism and originalism will mean whatever they need it to mean at a particular moment; even if it contradicts their own previous rulings (or a reasonable "original" reading interpretation, for that matter).

The hole I'm thinking of is that of originalism. If originalism is utilized to overturn the equal protection status of gay marriage, I think it will require a little bit of bending to keep it from eroding other rights. I'm not saying the bending won't take place.

 

[cosmicaug]

You are incorrect. the only specifically described condition pertaining to risk to the mother is ectopic pregnancy.

Don't worry. I'm sure it will be revised with a requirement to re-implant the pregnancy (there's no such procedure but that's OK —after all, this revision would not be the first, or the last, government policy which may lead to some deaths and this will be a good thing because babies... or something).

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Conversely, babies will live.

This is wrong, or at the very least extremely and deliberately misleading.

A Fetus is not a baby, regardless of the propaganda.
Also, most women have an abortion to delay the moment when they have a child, not to have no child at all.
That means that no additional child will be born, just that it will be born at a better time for everyone concerned.

There is some superstition about a limited supply of Souls going on when people insist that every fertilization should lead to a birth - God clearly didn't think so, or the rate of spontaneous abortion wouldn't be so high.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is what I meant when I said, "And, whether speaking of Jewish law or of secular law, there will be plenty of debate about exactly what constitutes danger,"

The laws that get passed will have exceptions for the life of the mother, and both sides will go into court trying to say that the line should be drawn more restrictively or less restrictively. ...

My advice is to be sure to vote.

Some of the laws being passed now do not have any exceptions.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Conversely, babies will live.

No they won't. Abortions will not go down. This is one of the facts.

Why do you continue to lie?

 

[ZiprHead]

When we have both a black and a female member of SCOTUS arguing for "originalist" interpretations of anything the idea that we have to prove they are just picking and choosing when to use a buzzword is rather silly.

If they are going to be originalists, Barrett should resign and Thomas is only 3/5s of a judge.

..

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do we have a link to this Trevor Noah clip yet?

These judges make lying fun. It's the Black Robe Comedy Tour!

Some of the Twitter comments are interesting:

“It’s no big deal that Trump took fifteen boxes of classified materials to Mar-a-Lago but it’s a huge problem that someone leaked the draft of a Supreme Court opinion early,” I insist as I contort myself into a pretzel.

 

[bruto]

..

While I get the point of how ironic it is for women and blacks to be originalists, I do think it depends to some degree on whether one considers the amendments to be legitimate parts of the Constitution which are, in their own way, original too.

 

[smartcooky]

Conversely, babies will live..

Individually... perhaps, but overall no.

FACT: Making abortions illegal doesn't affect demand

FACT: Back yard abortions will increase - "babies"* will still die, and so will some of the mothers.

FACT: Some mothers will even be murdered by the father of her "baby"*.

FACT: Of those women who would have had an abortion if they could, but were unable to get one, and weren't willing to risk going the backyard route...

- some will "dispose" of the child in other ways, including killing them or dumping them, so those "babies"* will die or are likely to die

- some will neglect their unwanted child and it will ultimately (at worst) die, or (at best) become a ward of the state.

The facts are that the banning of abortion will make no change to the number of abortions being sought; no change to the number of abortions being done, and will result in the deaths of mothers who would not have died if abortions were legal.

*"I use the term "babies" as a batter of language convenience. Babies are not babies until birth - aborted zygotes and foetuses are not babies

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Pete Buttigieg comments on the Roe reversal followed by Brian Tyler Cohen comments.

BREAKING: Pete Buttigieg just SURGED into the spotlight with the speech of the year on abortion.

It is pretty good. Buttigieg's intelligence shows. It's so refreshing compared to some of the idiots on the alt-right we've been subjected to lately.


And BTW, if this was really about saving "babies" there are so many better ways to prevent abortions than to outlaw them. But it isn't. It's about demonizing 'libruls' and using that to distract from debating real issues like making people's lives better.

 

[Cain]

You object to the Supreme Court thwarting local gun control, even though the Constitution specifically and explicitly protects gun ownership.

That's *********. The anti-standing army amendment has long been understood as protecting free states from a crafty overarching federal government. Now the "Originalists" are all too happy to over-ride state and local laws.

But you're upset that the Supreme Court has stopped thwarting local abortion control, even though the Constitution makes no mention of or reference to abortion, or even "privacy".

Admit it: what you really object to is the Constitution itself.

I think I was pretty clear that I objected to the Constitution itself (and its antiquated institutions). I've been pretty clear in the past about the cult-menality surrounding the document. The "pen man" of the Constitution was one of the more enlightened of the Founders and died sticking a whale bone in his dick-hole. Political science has advanced in the past two-hundred years.

I'm not even keen on the idea of judicial review, a power the court grabbed more than a decade after the Constitution was ratified, but a loose interpretation by an enlightened super-legislature is preferred to rule by an ignorant minority of the people who believe an invisible sky-wizard plants souls in microscopic biological material.

 

[gnome]

To me not having judicial review is like a rock-paper-scissors game where Paper can't beat Rock. The checks and balances just aren't complete.

I'm really convinced that a courtroom is the best place to be the final arbiter of constitutionality. Even if the judges can't be completely isolated from politics, courtroom procedures more often make sure that each party to a dispute gets a fair chance to advocate to a panel that isn't beholden to lawmakers or the executive administration. Or to anyone at all, in the case of juries.

 

[Ziggurat]

The facts are that the banning of abortion will make no change to the number of abortions being sought; no change to the number of abortions being done,

Those are not facts. There is no evidence for this assertion, and basic logic suggests this is highly unlikely. You pulled this out of your ass.

and will result in the deaths of mothers who would not have died if abortions were legal.

I believe I already said so. The number is likely to be low.

 

[Ziggurat]

No they won't. Abortions will not go down. This is one of the facts.

Why do you continue to lie?

No, it isn’t a fact. It’s an unjustified assumption based on an incredibly naive interpretation of a selective fact (the abortion rate now is lower than the abortion rate pre-Roe), without considering both what happened in the intermediate time period or what other factors may influence this rate, such as advances in birth control.

If you want to come at me with accusations of lying, you should actually know what you are talking about, and you clearly don’t.

 

[smartcooky]

Those are not facts. There is no evidence for this assertion, and basic logic suggests this is highly unlikely. You pulled this out of your ass.

Unlike you Zig, I get my facts and evidence from actual statistics.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/upshot/texas-abortion-women-data.html

In the months after Texas banned all but the earliest abortions in September, the number of legal abortions in the state fell by about half. But two new studies suggest the total number among Texas women fell by far less — around 10 percent — because of large increases in the number of Texans who travelled to a clinic in a nearby state or ordered abortion pills online.​

And you can add in things that wont be in the statistics, like backyard abortions, and illegally performed abortions carried out by doctors on private patients in secret, the drop will be even less

Furthermore, if you check out the end of the graph, you will see that abortions in Texas are on the rise again, as women become more savvy about getting abortion pills, accessing abortions in other states, and finding ways (together with their doctors) to end run around the law.

So who are those the comprise the small percentage temporary drop in abortions? The poorest of course - those who are the most vulnerable, can least afford an unwanted child, and are the least financially capable of looking after it.

Congratulations SCOTUS, you've ****** over the poorest people in your country... again!


ETA: For those who cannot access the above link due to the paywall

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is why I had to start using the term "Proudly Wrong" because just regular old "Wrong" doesn't even begin to describe how wrong the Right is now.