Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Future of the Supreme Court

The Future of the Supreme Court (Page 19)
Thread Tools
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2022, 04:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Why not?
Because it doesn’t benefit all and harm no one. I’m thankful I’ve never had to be party to an elective abortion, and if I had been I’d feel really bad about it, because that would be horrible and awful.

I’m not religious. I have issues with the legal reasoning behind Roe and Casey. If I were a Supreme Court justice, I’d only support retaining them on the grounds of stare decisis. Likewise, I wouldn’t consider them inviolate. The pre-viability stricture in Casey is horrible and awful.

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. Viability is defined as a 50% chance of survival outside the womb. I don’t generally play the “abortion is murder” game, but electively terminating a fetus with a 40% chance of survival outside the womb is murder. Full stop.


P.S. I care far more about unintentionally antagonizing people here than sharing my opinions. If anyone would rather I shut up, that’s what I’ll do.
( Last edited by subego; May 14, 2022 at 05:36 PM. )
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2022, 06:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Of course, striking down Roe has nothing to do with any of that. It’s entirely theological, both political and religious.
How is that constitutional then? You can't have religious laws can you? Presumably that extends to striking them down for religious reasons. Someone really should have codified abortion back when the Senate was a reasonable place.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2022, 06:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
That’s sort of a false equivalence, though. The things you point to as being “no compromise” to progressives pretty universally expand rights, which ultimately benefit all and harm no one. This is fully in the spirit of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

“No compromise” items for the right, on the other hand, almost universally involve revocation or limiting rights to select groups (usually non-white straight male christian) and have real negative effects on people’s lives.
I'm not sure that this is true. Trans rights harms non-trans people, for a start. (Where do women go for a safe space if they are forced to share facilities with biologically male self-identifying "women"?)

Freedom to teach gender fluidity absolutely harms those that believe that there are only two sexes: or at least harms their right to teach their children that.

Over-representation of minorities harms the majority (although there is a case that it is about time; but still the harm is real)

I think that you have put your finger on why compromise is impossible: both sides consider their view is self-evidently obvious and unarguable.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2022, 06:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
How is that constitutional then? You can't have religious laws can you? Presumably that extends to striking them down for religious reasons. Someone really should have codified abortion back when the Senate was a reasonable place.
If it is indeed true any given justice Is basing their decision on religious principles rather than legal ones, they get around the lack of constitutionality by lying about their reasoning.

Edit: of course it’s possible any given justice may think they are basing it on legal principles, but are in denial about the real reason.
( Last edited by subego; May 14, 2022 at 06:34 PM. )
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2022, 07:05 PM
 
If the woman has no say in getting pregnant (rape, incest, sabotaged rubber), shouldn't she be entitled to a rental fee? I'm told "labor" is intensive, and carrying isn't so easy. Inconvenience later on, morning sickness whenever. Job impacts. If she's forced to carry something she didn't consent to, for free, that would violate the 13th Amendment. No slavery (unpaid forced labor).

So if abortion is outlawed, she'd have to be compensated the monthly rental fee for her womb. Plus employment losses, extra food, etc. Sounds expensive. Who pays?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2022, 07:14 PM
 
The rapist?
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2022, 07:24 PM
 
Kinda doubt prison wages are good. That would force her to extend (interest-free?) credit to a scumbag for years, in case he survives prison, and ever makes good money. If she even roots for him to die in prison, she's going against her own financial interest.

I'm thinking the state that denies her an abortion should pay. Their decision, they should cover the messy details.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2022, 07:54 PM
 
Maybe we should pay prisoners more for their labor.

I was more thinking more of seizing current assets though, which admittedly may not be enough. What’s the hourly for a bun in the oven?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2022, 01:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by christ View Post
Freedom to teach gender fluidity absolutely harms those that believe that there are only two sexes: or at least harms their right to teach their children that.
That cuts both ways: not teaching children does harm, too. E. g. my sex ed in the US was abstinence-only.
Originally Posted by christ View Post
I'm not sure that this is true. Trans rights harms non-trans people, for a start. (Where do women go for a safe space if they are forced to share facilities with biologically male self-identifying "women"?)
Others feeling discomfort because of one’s mere existence is not harm. Many men also feel uncomfortable knowing they have to share a shower with a gay or bisexual man. (In my experience, women are much more accepting on average.) You have no right to feel comfortable.
Originally Posted by christ View Post
Over-representation of minorities harms the majority (although there is a case that it is about time; but still the harm is real)
Is there really over-representation? For instance, 5–10 % of the population is gay. Are 5–10 % of TV, movie or game characters gay? I’m not convinced there really is over-representation in any of these domains.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2022, 01:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
So if abortion is outlawed, she'd have to be compensated the monthly rental fee for her womb. Plus employment losses, extra food, etc. Sounds expensive. Who pays?
You don’t need to go that far. Just think of a normal couple on the lower end of the economic spectrum:
- There is no government-mandated maternity leave in the US.
- Births and maternity-related are not free.
- Day care is unaffordably expensive and even if you have the money hard to get.

I remember reading a case of a single mother you got into trouble with CPS, she locked her young kids at home, because she had to work. You know, to make money so that she could feed her kids. What is someone like that supposed to do?

I’d be much more impressed with pro lifers if they not just looked towards outlawing abortion, but also addressed the underlying reasons why women choose to end a pregnancy.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Brien
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2022, 01:17 AM
 
I’m more concerned the precedence this sets, if Griswold, Brown, and Loving are in the crosshairs too.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2022, 03:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Others feeling discomfort because of one’s mere existence is not harm. Many men also feel uncomfortable knowing they have to share a shower with a gay or bisexual man. (In my experience, women are much more accepting on average.) You have no right to feel comfortable.
Isn’t this argument, taken to its conclusion, the elimination of all gender segregated spaces?

Would you deny me entry into woman’s locker rooms? On what grounds?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2022, 05:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Isn’t this argument, taken to its conclusion, the elimination of all gender segregated spaces?
I don’t think that’s the conclusion you arrive at. The point is that according to data transwomen are not a threat to women whereas they are subject to abuse. Sending them to the men’s room would likely be a risk for them. Regular men are and outsized threat to women.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe the discomfort and (unjustified) fear may be real in some, but unjustified fear in some doesn’t justify curtailing basic freedoms in others. Like I wrote above, the situation is so similar to men and gay men in shared spaces (showers, locker rooms, you name it).

Also, gender segregation is very much cultural. For example, if you go to a public swimming pool in Germany, locker rooms are mixed. You do have stalls, though. I know most of my close German friends (male and female) naked, because we used to go to the sauna together. In the Netherlands, in many public buildings toilets are shared between genders. In Japan public baths used to be shared, until the Americans opened Japan up by force in the 1850s. Then they adopted American puritan values when it came to gender segregation. And because it is cultural, you can also change it when culture changes.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Would you deny me entry into woman’s locker rooms? On what grounds?
Are you a transwoman? If not, aren’t we talking about two very different situations here?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2022, 05:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Brien View Post
I’m more concerned the precedence this sets, if Griswold, Brown, and Loving are in the crosshairs too.
I don’t think they will repeal the ban on mixed race marriages, culture has moved too far. But contraception and gay marriage might be on the chopping block — the more recent, the easier it is to repeal. That’s why Alito’s reasoning in the draft isn’t just weak, but also dangerous: it is the morals of the majority of justices on the Supreme Court that counts, not society at large.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2022, 05:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
IAre you a transwoman?
Depends on who’s asking, sailor.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2022, 07:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Depends on who’s asking, sailor.
I’m married now, no more adventures of this kind for me
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2022, 10:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If it is indeed true any given justice Is basing their decision on religious principles rather than legal ones, they get around the lack of constitutionality by lying about their reasoning.

Edit: of course it’s possible any given justice may think they are basing it on legal principles, but are in denial about the real reason.
I don't pretend to know the cut-off that scientific consensus would arrive at, but any ban on abortions sooner than that date is religiously motivated. But again, I suppose any case testing that would still be struck down by the current SC, constitutional or not.
I presume Biden could write an executive order granting abortion rights if he chose to? Doing so now would give the GOP a focus for the next election so maybe he wouldn't want to for that reason. But he could sign one after the next election right? Even if he loses it would force the republican president to undo if he dared. Not sure I can see Trump doing that himself. I'm quite certain he's in favour of abortions, though of course he and his family can afford to go wherever to get them.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2022, 10:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
If the woman has no say in getting pregnant (rape, incest, sabotaged rubber), shouldn't she be entitled to a rental fee? I'm told "labor" is intensive, and carrying isn't so easy. Inconvenience later on, morning sickness whenever. Job impacts. If she's forced to carry something she didn't consent to, for free, that would violate the 13th Amendment. No slavery (unpaid forced labor).

So if abortion is outlawed, she'd have to be compensated the monthly rental fee for her womb. Plus employment losses, extra food, etc. Sounds expensive. Who pays?
I like the thinking here. I imagine there is a going rate for surrogates that would act as basis. If someone doesn't want to rent their uterus than that price goes up though thats hard to quantify.
There is all the medical costs of a birth plus all the checkups and tests and rehab pre and post birth of course as well, and all the child support (a child the mother doesn't want should be paid for 100% by whoever is liable for forcing her to have it and adoption isn't a defence since motherly instincts are so powerful).
Then she can also add a massive compensation settlement for the permanent physiological changes to her body. stretch marks, changes in her vagina both aesthetic and functional, bladder control, wider hips, these are all things that would fetch a hefty price tag in any regular law suits. Elective C-sections might mitigate some of this but they cost money too and add any surgical scars on the compensation claim list.

What would happen if someone tried to file a claim of this sort against the conservative members of the SC? I presume the SC would dismiss it if no-one below them did.

I've seen talk of charging justices with perjury for testifying during confirmation that they wouldn't overturn RvW. Any legs in that?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2022, 11:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I like the thinking here. I imagine there is a going rate for surrogates that would act as basis. If someone doesn't want to rent their uterus than that price goes up though thats hard to quantify.
As fun an intellectual exercise this is, I think we should go back to reality and just know that not even government-mandated parental leave is on the legislative table. Going from there to having the government pay a salary or damages to carry a pregnancy to term is a huge stretch.

In the end, I don't think it'd do much anyway. Most rapists are never accused. Even fewer are convicted in a court of law. So even if this law existed, it'd only apply to so few women that it'd be a largely symbolic measure.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I've seen talk of charging justices with perjury for testifying during confirmation that they wouldn't overturn RvW. Any legs in that?
I think that's childish and stupid. Any nominee supported by the Federalist Society has been thoroughly vetted, and they wouldn't get their nod if they weren't opposed to Roe vs. Wade. Asking the nominees is kabuki theater. Susan Collins clutching her pearls now is as unbelievable and unbelievably stupid as liberal lawmakers thinking of charging them with perjury.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2022, 11:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I presume Biden could write an executive order granting abortion rights if he chose to?
I'm far from a legal expert. My understanding is that executive orders are orders to the Federal government (or those who do business with them). They'd affect federal employees, and/or people who accept federal money. Like contractors.

I suppose he could order military bases to offer abortion services to the public, even in states that forbid it. The bases are not subject to state jurisdiction. But such a service isn't a traditional military exercise, so it would certainly draw lawsuits. The military does offer free medical services to the public sometimes, even outside the USA. Such as those peacetime trips of the USNS Mercy and Comfort hospital ships. They periodically tour a part of the world and give free service in various countries. As practice for the hospital staff, and for goodwill purposes.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I've seen talk of charging justices with perjury for testifying during confirmation that they wouldn't overturn RvW. Any legs in that?
Again, not a lawyer. That said, the offense would be to Congress. Lying to Congress, which Congress can punish directly via impeachment. Which I don't see happening (convictions anyway). No idea what would happen if Congress referred a sitting SCOTUS justice to the Justice Department for perjury.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2022, 10:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. Viability is defined as a 50% chance of survival outside the womb. I don’t generally play the “abortion is murder” game, but electively terminating a fetus with a 40% chance of survival outside the womb is murder. Full stop.

P.S. I care far more about unintentionally antagonizing people here than sharing my opinions. If anyone would rather I shut up, that’s what I’ll do.
To be clear then, you are granting that 40% viable non-living fetus more rights than a 100% living woman. No need to shut up, but be clear that is what you are admitting.

No one should be forceably made to be pregnant, kept being pregnant, against their will. This is as abhorrent as forced or surreptitious sterilization.

It absolutely is denying women personhood, rights, free will, and implies lack of value.

What price to put on a year of someone's life, and the repercussions after that? What price to put on someone's body being changed forever? Mentally? Never mind medical bills.

There's no fucking hourly wage on that. Don't be flip. Basing it on each woman's potential earnings lost is also classist and as impossible to standardize across the country as the minimum wage. The only people who get to put a price on carrying a baby is those who CHOOSE to be surrogates.

Amy Coney Barrett may want to increase the white adoption pool for Betsy Devoy's "adoption" agencies but the US govt should not be in the for-profit BUSINESS of selling babies.

If it were about the sanctity of life so called prolifers would be much more about helping women who want babies afford them with childcare, healthcare, preschool, etc.

/signed, a woman
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2022, 01:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
To be clear then, you are granting that 40% viable non-living fetus more rights than a 100% living woman. No need to shut up, but be clear that is what you are admitting.
Yes, I fully admit this.

Should a pregnant woman wish to electively abort, I believe they have a moral obligation to make that decision in a timely manner.

Viability is at 6 months. I’m saying make the decision by 4 months.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2022, 01:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
There's no fucking hourly wage on that. Don't be flip
The post I replied to with that wasn’t being entirely serious, and my reply was in kind.

That my question was ridiculous was the point.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2022, 03:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I've seen talk of charging justices with perjury for testifying during confirmation that they wouldn't overturn RvW. Any legs in that?
None of them actually said that though. Trust me, they were all being very careful about it.

At the time of their testimony, these were all Federal Appeals Court judges. If anyone knows how to avoid commission of a federal crime while feeding you a line of bullshit, it’s going to be them.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2022, 07:12 PM
 
Some of their statements were to Senators in their private offices. Job interviews, basically. To my knowledge, no transcripts have been released from office interviews, and the meetings might not have been recorded. So it's possible they did tell Collins privately they would not overturn RvW.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2022, 07:32 PM
 
That’s not perjury though.

As you said, Congress could raise a stink, but the Justice Department doesn’t have a case.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2022, 07:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That’s not perjury though.

As you said, Congress could raise a stink, but the Justice Department doesn’t have a case.
Plus, I’d say that everyone knows that this is kabuki theater. If Susan Collins were to claim she has been deceived, she is either stupid or unfit for office, or she just hoped she didn’t have to pay a political price if Roe were overturned. I think people like Susan Collins would have been much more comfortable with a 5-to-4 rather than 6-to-3 court, because they could have continued in the status quo and could reasonably count on Chief Justice Roberts acting as the swing vote. (It seems he voted with the minority.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2022, 08:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That’s not perjury though.

As you said, Congress could raise a stink, but the Justice Department doesn’t have a case.
Agreed, it's not perjury (lying under oath). But to my knowledge, "lying to Congress" is it's own crime. Punishable by up to $5K and/or up to 5 years in jail.

Would lying to a Senator in her office count? I don't know. Would not care to test it myself, but important people get different rules than you or I.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2022, 09:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
To be clear then, you are granting that 40% viable non-living fetus more rights than a 100% living woman. No need to shut up, but be clear that is what you are admitting.

No one should be forceably made to be pregnant, kept being pregnant, against their will. This is as abhorrent as forced or surreptitious sterilization.

It absolutely is denying women personhood, rights, free will, and implies lack of value. […]

/signed, a woman
QFT.
I think it is so easy to forget that most of the discussion is among men, and the ones most in favor of restrictions seem to have little-to-no-knowledge when it comes to biology and the reality of women and pregnancies.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2022, 05:55 PM
 
What about this:

Biden establishes a Legal Science Council. This council has to consist of highly scientifically qualified, multi-disciplinary members who will meet and decide what US law will adopt as accepted science on any given matter that seems helpful. For example, this council will rule on what the cut-off should be for elective abortion without medical justification. This would mean that any law seeking to ban abortions before this scientifically approved cut-off, would be automatically legally designated as having its basis in religion, and would therefore be unconstitutional.

Council members would be required to have years of research at top universities and maybe a nobel prize or equivalent in their fields in order to sit on the council. That will stop idiot conservatives from conning their way onto it.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2022, 06:14 PM
 
We can call it the “Ministry of Truth”.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2022, 06:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
We can call it the “Ministry of Truth”.
Come on, that’s a cheap shot.
The idea isn’t new. E. g. the Challenger Disaster was famously investigated by such a commission. In other countries, this is common, too. Germany’s parliamentarians have access to what is called Scientific Service (wissenschaftlicher Dienst). Parliamentarians and parties can ask them questions, and they try to summarize the scientific state of the art. For other things like Covid, there were advisory bodies collect science from different fields and argue about what the right trade-off should be. (Think the impact of Covid on education, and the multitude of voices you need to form a comprehensive opinion.)

For things like abortion, this is sorely needed as a lot of lawmakers are (intentionally or unintentionally) ignorant about science, and the knock-on effects. Examples include:
- (Proposed) laws that require the reimplantation of ectopic pregnancies require something that at present is medically impossible. Ectopic pregnancies are literally the #1 cause of death during the early part of pregnancies, so this isn’t some theoretical threat.
- A relatively high percentage of pregnancies ends in miscarriages, and women could get into trouble when some laws come into effect, because e. g. either they may be suspected of having induced an abortion or engaged in “risky behavior”.
- If you define a human being as a fertilized egg, by a strict reading of the law you also outlaw IVF since here multiple eggs are fertilized and only a few are implanted. The rest is discarded — which would now be illegal. I reckon that most pro-lifers would welcome more children in the world and would not want to stop IVF treatments.
- Likewise, this would outlaw certain contraceptives, which prevent fertilized eggs (zygotes) from nesting themselves into the uteran wall.
- The number of unwanted pregnancies can be reduced if common reasons for why women want abortions are better understood by lawmakers. This is also a point where they can make common cause with pro choice people.

This is just an incomplete list from the top of my head.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2022, 07:14 PM
 
The ectopic pregnancy legislation I’ve seen is all what are termed “trigger laws”. They don’t come into effect unless explicit circumstances come to pass.

In this case, the circumstances are reimplantation of an ectopic pregnancy is a viable procedure. The law does not take effect until this is the case.

What science is being misunderstood?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2022, 08:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The ectopic pregnancy legislation I’ve seen is all what are termed “trigger laws”. They don’t come into effect unless explicit circumstances come to pass.

In this case, the circumstances are reimplantation of an ectopic pregnancy is a viable procedure. The law does not take effect until this is the case.
That does not seem to be the case for all state laws, e. g. Missouri’s law. AFAIK the trigger is Roe vs. Wade being overturned, not when re-implantation becomes medically viable. The Ohio law includes the qualification “if applicable”, which might be what you are referring to.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What science is being misunderstood?
That ectopic pregnancies are never viable.

You’d think that this is obvious, but this is disputed in parts of the right-wing echo chamber, have a look at e. g. this opinion piece by the Federalist. And the lawmaker who sponsored the Missouri law also seemingly wasn’t aware of this either. (At least that’s the charitable interpretation, it is always possible that he knew and he wanted to virtue signal to the uninformed.)

Others seem to argue that they should wait until they are sure the zygote or embryo has died and/or let it pass naturally.

Lastly, let me make an important point: even when a ban is technically not total, it will lead to more women dying. We have clear evidence of that from Ireland and Poland where women have died, because doctors hesitated too long or refused to terminate a risky pregnancy. If suddenly you base laws on false information and create barriers to terminating ectopic pregnancies, statistically speaking, more women will die, especially when they are poor or women of color.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2022, 09:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
This law doesn’t ban abortions for ectopic pregnancies.

Here’s the primary source. The penalties apply in cases of…

“…performing or inducing an abortion on another person in violation of any state or federal law” [emphasis added]

A therapeutic abortion for an ectopic pregnancy performed by a qualified professional in appropriate facilities is not against Missouri state law. This bill does not apply to those abortions in any way, shape, or form.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2022, 01:18 PM
 
Maybe we should form a government council to help journalists learn to check their sources and parse simple English sentences.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2022, 03:35 PM
 
Bullshit. Who decides what is therapeutic? And the law absolutely makes aborting an ectopic pregnancy a class A FELONY.

"The offense of trafficking abortion-inducing devices or drugs is a class A
felony if:
...
(2) The abortion was performed or induced or was attempted to be performed or
induced on a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy"
Also this provision is fun, considering school buses drive by all kinds of places:
"The location of the offense is:
(a) Within two thousand feet of real property comprising a public or private
elementary, vocational, or secondary school, college, community college, university, or
any school bus;"
If it's too close to a school are they afraid their protesters will scare children walking to school?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2022, 03:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Bullshit. Who decides what is therapeutic? And the law absolutely makes aborting an ectopic pregnancy a class A FELONY.
No it doesn’t. It’s a felony if the abortion is performed in violation of state law.

All abortions provided due to ectopic pregnancies are therapeutic.


Edit: and to clarify further, what this law makes a felony is trafficking in materials involved in an illegal abortion, not the abortion itself.
( Last edited by subego; May 18, 2022 at 04:11 PM. )
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2022, 04:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
If it's too close to a school are they afraid their protesters will scare children walking to school?
As I noted, this law is about trafficking.

What they’re afraid of is trafficking in schools, so they increase the penalty for trafficking in or around a school.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2022, 06:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
No it doesn’t. It’s a felony if the abortion is performed in violation of state law.

All abortions provided due to ectopic pregnancies are therapeutic.


Edit: and to clarify further, what this law makes a felony is trafficking in materials involved in an illegal abortion, not the abortion itself.
I think you are completely missing the forest for the trees:
- Why include ectopic pregnancies at all in the law? Ectopic pregnancies are not viable and are always a risk to the health, fertility and life of the woman.
- Assuming your interpretation is correct, what prevents Missouri from changing state law in this respect? I have linked to some commentary that shows that some people on the right seem to believe ectopic pregnancies are viable and not really that dangerous to women (“they usually pass on their own”).
- From what I understand, the law also outlaws medication that is apparently commonly used to terminate ectopic pregnancies.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2022, 07:42 PM
 
I don’t see anywhere in the bill where it outlaws anything that isn’t already illegal in Missouri.

In the example you gave there’s a giant retraction at the beginning along with an admission from the author they’re a moron.

The reason ectopic pregnancies are in the bill (I presume) are to make it clear having a good reason to perform an abortion does not grant permission to perform that abortion illegally.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2022, 07:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The reason ectopic pregnancies are in the bill (I presume) are to make it clear having a good reason to perform an abortion does not grant permission to perform that abortion illegally.
That logic seems weird and is unconvincing.
Why not write that you expressly only allow abortions when the fetus is not viable and a risk to the mother’s health? Ectopic pregnancies need not be mentioned since they are just one of the circumstances where a pregnancy isn’t viable and a risk to the mother’s health and life.

Again, have a look at some of the deranged right-wing press, they claim that ectopic pregnancies may be viable and you don’t need to do anything even if they are not. I see no other reason for singling out ectopic pregnancies here.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2022, 08:12 PM
 
The bill sets forth penalties for trafficking in materials used in illegal abortions. It says nothing about what constitutes a legal (or illegal) abortion.


Edit: as I said, in the example given from the deranged right-wing press the author retracted her article and admitted she was a moron. This is to her credit.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2022, 09:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Edit: as I said, in the example given from the deranged right-wing press the author retracted her article and admitted she was a moron. This is to her credit.
That's exactly the point I was making in my post that sparked this tangent: people who have no idea about the science are in charge of making laws that are chock-full of unintended consequences.

Again, what other reason is there to mention ectopic pregnancies at all in the bill? Is it incompetence or ignorance or virtue signaling to an ignorant base or conviction? I don't want to argue a question that cannot be decided.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2022, 09:41 PM
 
The author of the article displayed her ignorance, was corrected, and adjusted her viewpoint to match the new information. She further apologized for making false arguments. I’m not seeing where this result is deficient at all, let alone deficient enough to be submitted as evidence justifying federal intervention.

Likewise, it appears the ectopic pregnancy language was removed from the Missouri bill. In what way is this result deficient?


For people with a (deserved) reputation as insufferably obstinate and unwilling to compromise, I detect a pattern of playing against type on the issue of ectopic pregnancies.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2022, 11:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
... it appears the ectopic pregnancy language was removed from the Missouri bill.
I don't believe this rather important note was mentioned earlier. Can't speak for anyone else, but I was assuming the language was still in, hence the discussion.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2022, 12:53 AM
 
I think we should also not forget that other states include mentions of ectopic pregnancies. Even qualifiers like “if applicable” do not change the fact that ectopic pregnancies are included for no game or d reason. Also, given the ignorance (at best) around ectopic pregnancies, I am certain other circumstances that necessitate an abortion are not taken into consideration.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2022, 10:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I don't believe this rather important note was mentioned earlier. Can't speak for anyone else, but I was assuming the language was still in, hence the discussion.
I had assumed this as well. The version of the bill Google served me was unrevised.

On that front, the Ohio bill never left committee and was officially killed in 2020.


Master list of casualties from the war on ectopic pregnancy:
Dead bill
Struck language
Retraction and apology

I stand by my previous claim this isn’t an issue.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2022, 12:12 PM
 
Semantics.

If I run an auto repair center, and the govt makes a law that it is illegal to sell(traffic) mufflers, muffler parts, or tools/equipment to repair mufflers... can I still legally repair mufflers? Is the manufacturer legally responsible, the supplier, or am I, as the the de facto end seller? All 3? Do I dare even offer the service anymore? I mean, it's still legal to DO it, but without the tools, supplies...

This is how we end up with botched muffler repairs. Users will grab blow torches and tin cans and try to make their own.

Semantics.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2022, 12:43 PM
 
If a state bans selling mufflers, then selling mufflers is trafficking, and the law de facto bans muffler repair.

To carry out this analogy, Missouri hasn’t banned the sales of mufflers, they’ve banned sales to private citizens. If you want your muffler repaired in Missouri you have to go to a licensed professional, to whom distributors are allowed to sell.

This law sets out the penalties for selling mufflers to someone other than a licensed professional. It doesn’t outlaw anything that isn’t already illegal. It doesn’t define what’s illegal. It says “if this crime is committed, here are the penalties”. The penalties do not apply to a licensed distributor selling to a licensed mechanic. That’s not illegal, so it’s not trafficking.


It’s legal for licensed distributors to sell to licensed doctors in Missouri. That’s not illegal, so it’s not trafficking, and the penalties for trafficking don’t apply.

What’s not legal (for example) is me as a private citizen selling or giving you RU486. That’s trafficking. This is what the law targets.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:46 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,