The Roe Countdown

[The Great Zaganza]

Almost all actual Witch Trials included accusations of having caused a miscarriage.
Welcome back to the good old days!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Given a health, full term baby whose mother is in labor, are there people who would say that the baby has no right to life? There undoubtedly are such people, so when I said "everyone" that isn't absolutely true.

Make of that what you will.

I agree with you here except for one thing, it's bull **** that women seek elective abortions in the 8th or 9th months of pregnancy. And no legit doctor would provide such an abortion. Even Dr Tiller was doing no such thing.

It's a boogyman the anti-abortion promoters use all the time as a supposed example of what "abortion on demand" means. And seeing it repeated here by folks who should know better than to repeat this lie is unfortunate.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Maine Senator Susan Collins called the cops because protestors wrote messages in chalk on the public sidewalk outside her home. Trying to have protestors arrested as vandals for writing messages that will wash away the first time it rains.

A heavily redacted police report obtained by Pawprints confirms that Susan Collins, the senior Senator from Maine, is the complainant who summoned law enforcement to inspect a message written in chalk on the sidewalk outside her home.

Yesterday, the Bangor Daily News broke the story that the police had been called to Collins’ residence on Saturday evening to check out the water soluble chalk message, which read “Susie, please, Mainers want WHPA ——> vote yes, clean up your mess.”

The WHPA, the report observes, is “the Women’s Health Protection Act, which is legislation set to be voted on in the senate on Wednesday, 5/11/2022.”

The confirmation that Collins made the call to the cops herself is not particularly surprising. The Bangor Daily News included a suggestive quote from Collins praising the police and public works response to what she referred to as “the defacement of public property in front of our home;” however, it did not expressly say who had summoned the local authorities.

https://www.nycsouthpaw.com/p/susan-collins-called-the-police-to?s=w

These people are soft little babies, absolutely need to keep up these tactics and escalate.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I hope the police make a big show about how they are totally going to do something about and make long speeches about how they totally disagree with it and furl their brows SOOOOOO hard at it... and then in the end just don't do anything.

 

[plague311]

I agree with you here except for one thing, it's bull **** that women seek elective abortions in the 8th or 9th months of pregnancy. And no legit doctor would provide such an abortion. Even Dr Tiller was doing no such thing.

It's a boogyman the anti-abortion promoters use all the time as a supposed example of what "abortion on demand" means. And seeing it repeated here by folks who should know better than to repeat this lie is unfortunate.

I pose this question to people making that same ridiculously stupid argument. Like any female is going to carry a baby to term, and in meadmakers case the mother is actually in ******* labor, and she goes, "Alright, I don't want to do this anymore. Please kill this child, pull it out of me, and let me go on my way."

It makes absolutely no sense at all. I can't even come up with a reason why anyone thinks that argument has any logic to it. If a woman experiences the death of a child when they're 8-9 months along it's easily in the top most traumatic things they'll have to go through in their entire lives.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Listen in every argument now we're expected to compare real world things that actually happen all the time to the Right's growing collection of insane what if scenarios that range from "literally impossible under the laws of physics" to "has never once happened" to "statistically insignificant."

 

[bruto]

It's hard to take such questions seriously, but I'll try.

If we determine that something is a crime, we are not obligated to take extreme measures to prevent that crime, nor even to detect that the crime is happening. There are many, many, crimes that you or I might be committing at this very minute, but there are no cops breaking down our doors just to make sure, nor does anyone want that to happen.

No we are not obligated, but obligation and permission are far far apart. A legal opportunity which is exercised at discretion is an open invitation to operative bigotry.

 

[cosmicaug]

Are you capable of murder? (I mean, just physically, not some sort of character issue.) Of course you are. So are we all. We could all be murderers.

And yet, no one follows us around to make sure we are not murdering.

Also, it won't necessarily be a matter of anyone following anyone (though if laws like the Texas one don't get struck down, as I expect they will be, it could come to that —if nothing else for the harassment value). It will be more along the lines of doing a search for evidence relating to unrelated alleged crimes and moving on to "how come there's a three month ovulation gap in your period tracking software?".

Definitely coming in for treatment with the aftermath of a miscarriage will end up targeting you (we know that because it's the sort of thing that happens already).

 

[Bob001]

.....
It's a boogyman the anti-abortion promoters use all the time as a supposed example of what "abortion on demand" means. And seeing it repeated here by folks who should know better than to repeat this lie is unfortunate.

Some fact-checking about "late term abortion:"

Dr. Barbara Levy: The phrase “late-term abortion” is medically inaccurate and has no clinical meaning. In science and medicine, it’s essential to use language precisely. In pregnancy, to be “late term” means to be past 41 weeks gestation, or past a patient’s due date. Abortions do not occur in this time period, so the phrase is contradictory.

Dr. Jennifer Conti: In obstetrics, we don’t divide pregnancies into terms. “Late term” is an invention of anti-abortion extremists to confuse, mislead and increase stigma. The appropriate language is “abortions later in pregnancy.”
......
Conti: There are many reasons why women may need to access abortion later in pregnancy, including maternal health endangerment, diagnosis of fetal abnormalities or restrictive laws delaying earlier access to abortion care. Those exceptionally rare cases that happen after 24 weeks are often because a fetus has a condition that cannot be treated and will never be able to survive – regardless of the gestational age or trimester.

It’s this exact reason that it’s nonsensical to legislate these cases: Nobody arrives at the decision to have an abortion after 24 weeks carelessly. Rather, it’s the rare case of rapidly decompensating maternal heart disease or a delayed diagnosis of anencephaly, where the fetus forms without a complete brain or skull, that bring people to these decisions.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/health/late-term-abortion-explainer/index.html

 

[jnelso99]

It’s not like it hasn’t happened before:

“Missouri health director kept spreadsheet of Planned Parenthood patients’ periods“

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article236773058.html

 

[JoeMorgue]

Because the whole "late term abortion" things plays into the Republican's actual motive; punishing women for having sex and the image of a woman just going "La de da guess I'll kill the baby" at the 279 day, 23 hours, 59 minute mark plays into that.

 

[cosmicaug]

From https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/05/10/1097734167/in-texas-abortion-laws-inhibit-care-for-miscarriages

But interpretation of the laws is still causing challenges to care. At least several OB-GYNs in the Austin area received a letter from a pharmacy in late 2021 saying it would no longer fill the drug methotrexate in the case of ectopic pregnancy, citing the recent Texas laws, said Dr. Charlie Brown, an Austin-based obstetrician-gynecologist who provided a copy to KHN. Methotrexate also is listed in the Texas law passed last year.

Ectopic pregnancy develops in an estimated 2% of reported pregnancies. Methotrexate or surgery are the only two options listed in the medical guidelines to prevent the fallopian tubes from rupturing and causing dangerous bleeding.

"Ectopic pregnancies can kill people," said Brown, a district chair for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, representing Texas.

Tom Mayo, a professor of law at Southwestern Methodist University's Dedman School of Law in Dallas, understands why some in Texas' pharmacy community might be nervous. "The penalties are quite draconian," he said, noting that someone could be convicted of a felony.

However, Mayo said that his reading of the law allows for the use of methotrexate to treat an ectopic pregnancy. In addition, he said, other Texas laws and the Roe v. Wade decision provide an exception to permit abortion if a pregnant person's life is in danger.

Since the Texas laws include a stipulation that there must be intent to induce an abortion, Mayo said that he'd advise physicians and other clinicians to closely document the rationale for medical care, whether it's to treat a miscarriage or an ectopic pregnancy.

But Prager believes that the laws in Texas — and perhaps elsewhere soon — could boost physicians' vulnerability to medical malpractice lawsuits. Consider the patient whose miscarriage care is delayed and develops a serious infection and other complications, Prager said. "And they decide to sue for malpractice," she said. "They can absolutely do that."

Texas providers are still adjusting to other ripple effects that affect patient care. Dr. Jennifer Liedtke, a family physician in Sweetwater, Texas, who delivers about 175 babies annually, no longer sends misoprostol prescriptions to the local Walmart. Since the new laws took effect, Liedtke said, the pharmacist a handful of times declined to provide the medication, citing the new law — despite Liedtke writing the prescription to treat a miscarriage. Walmart officials did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

 

[bruto]

Are you capable of murder? (I mean, just physically, not some sort of character issue.) Of course you are. So are we all. We could all be murderers.

And yet, no one follows us around to make sure we are not murdering.

If we make abortion illegal, we don't have to follow anyone around just to make sure they aren't aborting anything.


I see this sort of thing in other contexts as well. You can't forbid (whatever), because the only way we can make absolutely certain that no one is doing is (insert ridiculous description of preventive measures.) It's never true, but people bring it up a lot.

I know I kind of already said this but I'll say it again. This gets brought up a lot because a law that is practically unenforceable by reasonable people in reasonable ways should never ever be passed. If it is, it is an open invitation to repressive, bigoted, prejudicial, profile-driven abuse. And I believe this is, essentially, what the advocates of abortion bans, birth control bans, and so forth, are really after, There's certainly plenty of evidence that such principles are bent to convenience even by their fiercest advocates - anti-LGBT activists engaging in gay sex in bathrooms, anti-abortion family-values screamers paying to abort their mistresses, moral scolds scamming and stealing, and so forth, right down to jaywalking and loitering laws that are used as an excuse to harass, search and detain minorities. Laws that can and will not be enforced fairly are ready-made means to inconvenience, foil, harass and destroy one's enemies.

Murder, of the ordinary sort, is a red herring. While it's true that we're not followed around in case we murder, things change if there is evidence that a murder has actually happened. A similar law concerning abortion, lacking the conspicuity of murder, depends more on profiling and surmise. If abortion is defined as murder, a felony. reasonable suspicion of the event not only permits violation of privacy, it demands it.

Sure if you outlaw abortion, you don't have to follow people around to make sure they're not aborting anything. You won't, most of the time. But you CAN!

 

[plague311]

My biggest concern with the "murder" aspect of this, in whatever state I first saw it in, is there are no statute of limitations on murder. It can seriously open the door to abuse.

 

[Meadmaker]

I agree with you here except for one thing, it's bull **** that women seek elective abortions in the 8th or 9th months of pregnancy. And no legit doctor would provide such an abortion. Even Dr Tiller was doing no such thing.

It's a boogyman the anti-abortion promoters use all the time as a supposed example of what "abortion on demand" means. And seeing it repeated here by folks who should know better than to repeat this lie is unfortunate.

I agree, and I wasn't meaning to imply that this is a thing that is a substantive part of the debate. I just wanted to start with an extreme position and then walk it back from there.

However, the debate between 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 20 weeks or 24 weeks is very much a part of the debate. Women do indeed seek abortions after the point of viability, for example, although I suspect that almost all of those are the result of an improper estimate of the date of conception. i.e. a woman who is 24 weeks present thinks that she is only 19 weeks pregnant.

Because, somewhere, there has to be a line drawn. If nothing else, it has to be drawn at birth, meaning actual exit from the birth canal. So the question, from a legal point of view, is who draws the line? Judge, or legislator?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

My biggest concern with the "murder" aspect of this, in whatever state I first saw it in, is there are no statute of limitations on murder. It can seriously open the door to abuse.

More so than anti-abortion laws in general?

 

[TomB]

My biggest concern with the "murder" aspect of this, in whatever state I first saw it in, is there are no statute of limitations on murder. It can seriously open the door to abuse.

That leads me to a question...

Suppose a law that says something is illegal is ruled unconstitutional, but is still on the books, just unable to be enforced.

Now a later court comes in and overturns the first court ruling, meaning that the law is actually constitutional.

What is the status of cases that happened in the time between the two court cases? Does the reversal indicate that the law was always constitutional and enforceable? Or does the provision against ex post facto laws apply to the effects of court rulings as well?

 

[plague311]

More so than anti-abortion laws in general?

Because of the severity of the penalty for murder? Yes. I absolutely believe so.

That leads me to a question...

Suppose a law that says something is illegal is ruled unconstitutional, but is still on the books, just unable to be enforced.

Now a later court comes in and overturns the first court ruling, meaning that the law is actually constitutional.

What is the status of cases that happened in the time between the two court cases? Does the reversal indicate that the law was always constitutional and enforceable? Or does the provision against ex post facto laws apply to the effects of court rulings as well?

I am not a lawyer, however the acronym for that weirds me out, but I believe if it's ruled unconstitutional then it's stricken from the constitution, whether state or federal. I have nothing to back that up, but I'm fairly certain once it's struck down then it just goes into the abyss. It's no longer considered to be "on the record" as it were. Those cases would be dismissed. I'm not sure if they could be brought up for trial again as, since the law wasn't constitutional, no crime at the time was committed.

 

[cosmicaug]

Because of the severity of the penalty for murder? Yes. I absolutely believe so.



I am not a lawyer, however the acronym for that weirds me out, but I believe if it's ruled unconstitutional then it's stricken from the constitution, whether state or federal. I have nothing to back that up, but I'm fairly certain once it's struck down then it just goes into the abyss. It's no longer considered to be "on the record" as it were. Those cases would be dismissed. I'm not sure if they could be brought up for trial again as, since the law wasn't constitutional, no crime at the time was committed.

There's no automatic striking from state constitutions even if it becomes invalid when superseded by a SCOTUS ruling. For instance, it was perfectly legal to marry outside your race in Alabama in 1999; but the Constitution was only officially amended to allow this in 2000.

 

[Meadmaker]

That leads me to a question...

Suppose a law that says something is illegal is ruled unconstitutional, but is still on the books, just unable to be enforced.

Now a later court comes in and overturns the first court ruling, meaning that the law is actually constitutional.

What is the status of cases that happened in the time between the two court cases? Does the reversal indicate that the law was always constitutional and enforceable? Or does the provision against ex post facto laws apply to the effects of court rulings as well?

The ex post facto law provisions apply.