The Roe Countdown

[Ziggurat]

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.​

It always amuses me when people find some facts that they think disprove their opponents but actually do nothing of the sort. Your facts indicate that there was a 10% decrease in the number of abortions obtained. That supports what I said.

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

Quite possibly. But less is not zero.

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.

It may be rising for other reasons, and may have risen even in the absence of that law. Abortion rate is not a single-variable number.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's *********. The anti-standing army amendment has long been understood as protecting free states from a crafty overarching federal government.

The motive is distinct from the mechanism. And the mechanism is that the individual right to arms is protected.

Now the "Originalists" are all too happy to over-ride state and local laws.

When those local and state laws violate the constitution, of course they are. Would you actually want it any other way?

I think I was pretty clear that I objected to the Constitution itself (and its antiquated institutions).

Then the problem isn't how the Supreme Court interprets it, nor is the proper remedy to pick different judges.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Then the problem isn't how the Supreme Court interprets it, nor is the proper remedy to pick different judges.

You are improperly combining two distinct positions in the post you responded to

 

[lobosrul5]

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

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/n8p05gs135urbc5/TexasAbortions%202021.png?raw=1[/qimg]

It won't effect numbers for the affluent, but it certainly might for impoverished and immigrants who cannot afford to travel from east Texas to Albuquerque (likely the nearest legal abortion site) . This could eventually backfire on the TX GoP... I'm trying to see a silver lining.

 

[kookbreaker]

It always amuses me when people find some facts that they think disprove their opponents but actually do nothing of the sort. Your facts indicate that there was a 10% decrease in the number of abortions obtained. That supports what I said.

What you said:

"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."


Now you cry victory over a figure of 10% that could be accounted for by the normal reduction of abortions year to year or abortions that could not be counted by the studies used.

This is quite the pathetic victory you've got here. Another fine Zigg faceplant.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Gee, it's like when you outlaw a behavior, people avail themselves of methods that are harder to trace.

I haven't looked at the methodology, but if it relies at all on voluntary statements, gosh I can't imagine why it would indicate a decline...

 

[Meadmaker]

Personally, I really don't care if the number of abortions goes up or goes down after some states outlaw abortions and begin enforcing the ban. It's not something I care enough about to try and look up numbers and support a position.

However, just as a point of forum dynamics, the discussion is interesting to watch.

Some people are insisting it is a "fact" that the numbers will not decrease. I don't like it when people assert that something is a "fact", unless they can actually demonstrate it to be a fact. I especially don't like it when they do so in a rather aggressive manner, insulting anyone who dares disagree with the "fact". Acceptance of the "fact" becomes a sort of loyalty test. Those who are correct thinkers are expected to accept the "fact" and anyone who dares question the "fact" identifies himself as being the outsider, the enemy, one who is worthy of ridicule.

It gets especially weird when those people performing the loyalty test post information in support of the "fact", which actually doesn't support the "fact". In order to prove that the number of abortions would not go down, SmartCooky posted information that said it would only go down a little bit. However, anyone who points that out is obviously among the outsiders, and is worthy of ridicule.

There's far too much of that sort of thing in modern society, where people are expected to accept "facts" as a demonstration of loyalty, but I would like to think this place has a higher standard. If you want to claim something is a "fact", and to insult people who do not accept this "fact", at least be prepared to provide evidence that this is indeed a fact.


On the issue as a whole, I personally do not care. I'll look at one individual rather than a statistic. I see a woman is pregnant. She doesn't want to have a baby. There is a way to terminate the pregnancy with very low risk of harm to the pregnant woman. I think it ought to be allowed.* How many people find themselves in that position, or how many people choose that option, legally or illegally, doesn't really factor into my thinking.


*The actual answer is more complicated, and requires the use of words like "trimester", but that's not the point of this post, so we can discuss it if anyone finds it interesting.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

What Meadmaker just said.

 

[sackett]

When Americans consider a law to be unjust, they break it, and then stand and take the consequences.

It's an old, good tradition.

 

[smartcooky]

It always amuses me when people find some facts that they think disprove their opponents but actually do nothing of the sort. Your facts indicate that there was a 10% decrease in the number of abortions obtained. That supports what I said.

Quite possibly. But less is not zero.

It may be rising for other reasons, and may have risen even in the absence of that law. Abortion rate is not a single-variable number.

It always amuses me when people on the right become so hell-bent on justifying ANY thing their Dear Leaders do that they excuse their behaviour and twist anything opponent to or sya to mean another than what it actually means

The Texas Law was aimed at stopping all abortions - anything other that that is a clean miss. It hasn't stopped them, and its not even close to doing so. It has made no appreciable difference. The only women affected will be the poorest. As I stated earlier, those who can least afford an unwanted child, and are the least financially capable of looking after it. Texas will force these women to carry their children to term, and will promptly forget about them and do NOTHING to support them.

Exactly the same thing will happen with the overturning of Roe v Wade.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If you want fewer abortions, you spend money on sex education, easy and cheap access to contraception and women's healthcare.
The fact that Republicans would rather do the inefficient method of criminalizing (which worked so well in the War on Drugs) PROVES Without a Doubt that it is not about abortions AT ALL.
And anyone who thinks it is is deluding themselves.

By basically outlawing sex education, contraception and healthcare, Republicans do everything in their power to have more abortions.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If you want fewer abortions, you spend money on sex education, easy and cheap access to contraception and women's healthcare.
The fact that Republicans would rather do the inefficient method of criminalizing (which worked so well in the War on Drugs) PROVES Without a Doubt that it is not about abortions AT ALL.
And anyone who thinks it is is deluding themselves.

By basically outlawing sex education, contraception and healthcare, Republicans do everything in their power to have more abortions.

There have always been theories that some laws have function as statements of values rather than utilitarian function.

 

[The Atheist]

If you want fewer abortions, you spend money on sex education, easy and cheap access to contraception and women's healthcare.
The fact that Republicans would rather do the inefficient method of criminalizing (which worked so well in the War on Drugs) PROVES Without a Doubt that it is not about abortions AT ALL.
And anyone who thinks it is is deluding themselves.

By basically outlawing sex education, contraception and healthcare, Republicans do everything in their power to have more abortions.

Perfectly said - well done!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you want fewer abortions, you spend money on sex education, easy and cheap access to contraception and women's healthcare.
The fact that Republicans would rather do the inefficient method of criminalizing (which worked so well in the War on Drugs) PROVES Without a Doubt that it is not about abortions AT ALL.
And anyone who thinks it is is deluding themselves.

By basically outlawing sex education, contraception and healthcare, Republicans do everything in their power to have more abortions.

This ^

They don't support **** that might help pregnant women, mothers or young children either.

 

[Cain]

The motive is distinct from the mechanism. And the mechanism is that the individual right to arms is protected.

Asinine. This confuses several issues. Remember, we're discussing this in the context of vaunted "Originalism." Originalists are not supposed to pick n' choose what they want to believe; they're supposed to interpret the Constitution in accordance with the intentions of the framers (or what legislators ratifying the Constitution believed at the time). You've parroted the familiar talking points in the case of Roe: The word "privacy" never comes up in the Constitution, let alone "abortion." Judicial restraint demands leaving the matter to legislators, especially at the state and local levels (compare with anti-sodomy laws).

Yet, yet, yet, this same logic does not apply to weapons with regard to public safety because... the Second Amendment?? Never mind how the Marshall(!) Court ruled in Barron v. Baltimore. Are you referring to some other penumbra or emanation in the Constitution? As far as I know, there is no mechanism in the Originalist view, unless you want to say we did not "really" have the right to own guns until the 14th Amendment. A mechanism given to Congress was the "Necessary and Proper" clause. Do "Originalists" welcome a broad reading of the Elasticity clause? What about the Commerce clause? "Federalism for thee but not for me."

If you don't like state and local gun laws, vote in a new slate of legislators. If you want to say the Constitution protects a right to own weapons unconnected from militia service, then quote from the document. Or cite framers or legislators saying something to that effect. Or do anything because right now you're just failing and flailing. What you could do is bite the bullet.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Asinine. This confuses several issues. Remember, we're discussing this in the context of vaunted "Originalism." Originalists are not supposed to pick n' choose what they want to believe; they're supposed to interpret the Constitution in accordance with the intentions of the framers (or what legislators ratifying the Constitution believed at the time

Not intentions....but meaning

 

[Bob001]

A summary of some of the ignorance behind Alito's opinion:

Among the many shocking elements of the leaked draft Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, this one jumped out at me: the rosy picture of pregnancy painted by Justice Samuel Alito, who has never been pregnant. Alito lists a string of what he calls “modern developments” that lessen the financial toll exacted by pregnancy. “Federal and state laws ban discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,” he writes. “Leave for pregnancy and childbirth are now guaranteed by law in many cases,” and “costs of medical care associated with pregnancy are covered by insurance or government assistance.” The implication is that Roe has outlived any role it once played in improving women’s economic security.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/05/06/alito-pregnancy-abortion-paid-leave/

 

[Meadmaker]

A summary of some of the ignorance behind Alito's opinion:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/05/06/alito-pregnancy-abortion-paid-leave/

Well now I'm a bit curious, because it doesn't seem to make sense to me that he wouold be even talking about the subject. The columnist says, "The implication is...." My experience with Supreme Court readings is that they try not to have any implications. They try to be pretty explicit.

It makes me wonder if the reporter has taken something out of context.

I haven't looked it up, though. I'm kind of saying, "Sounds fishy to me..", but it's not outrageous, so it's possible that the reporter is being accurate.

ETA: Does anyone have a link to the actual text of the draft? I've seen scanned images, but they aren't text searchable. I assume someone has transcribed it to allow searching.

 

[Cain]

Not intentions....but meaning

That is textualism, which Scalia has often contrasted with originalism (though he has not been entirely coherent on the matter). Richard Posner, a conservative judge and perennial needler of Scalia had an article about it in the New Republic a while back that will give you a boner (because you'd fearlessly follow your logic to apocalypse).

https://newrepublic.com/article/106441/scalia-garner-reading-the-law-textual-originalism

Scalia is a pertinacious critic of the use of legislative history to illuminate statutory meaning; and one reason for his criticism is that a legislature is a hydra-headed body whose members may not share a common view of the interpretive issues likely to be engendered by a statute that they are considering enacting. But when he looks for the original meaning of eighteenth-century constitutional provisions—as he did in his opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, holding that an ordinance forbidding people to own handguns even for the defense of their homes violated the Second Amendment—Scalia is doing legislative history.

 

[Bob001]

.....
I haven't looked it up, though. I'm kind of saying, "Sounds fishy to me..", but it's not outrageous, so it's possible that the reporter is being accurate.

ETA: Does anyone have a link to the actual text of the draft? I've seen scanned images, but they aren't text searchable. I assume someone has transcribed it to allow searching.

Enjoy (the pdf takes awhile to download).
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21835435/scotus-initial-draft.pdf

There have been multiple criticisms of his draft on factual grounds, including him quoting an English barrister who supported execution of witches.