Roe v. Wade

[mcfeez]

There's discussion over whether or not IVF will take a hit next as well. Nothing has happened with that yet, but I hate that it's even been brought up. You're damned if you don't want a baby and you're damned if you try to have one!

It seems like it would be contradictory in some states to still have IVF, particularly the ones that maintain the stance of "life begins at conception"

"Unhealthy" embryos are discarded in IVF and sometimes healthy ones too if they aren't used. Would couples be super restricted in how many eggs are retrieved and fertilised etc? Its going to make the odds of potential conception even slimmer. Sounds like a potential head melt.

 

[Cack Conroe]

America, the new Afghanistan

My young adult Christian Orthodox son was shocked yesterday when I told him that I had an unwanted pregnancy at age 40. I detailed all the different ways our lives would have been ruined if I'd had a third child. Thankfully, I lost it early on, but it could have been very different, and I'd have been one of those women he'd be condemning right now. He's directly benefitted from a pregnancy not continuing and he took that on board. I also explained to him that this ruling will cause countless deaths and ruined lives. Reproduction is womens business and we need full control. Nothing to do with anyone else. Nothing to do with men whatsoever. Women have been 'dealing with' their reproductive issues since humans began. It's a messy business, but it's our business.

I hope they can get abortion pills out to women. This seems like an easier and safer option.

Why did you get pregnant if you didn’t want a baby? At the age of 40 you should have known how to prevent pregnancy.

 

[Lady_H]

I've just come across a post on reddit, where a woman's pharmacist warned her that she might soon no longer have access to her prescription anti-depressants, or any prescription that has even the slightest chance of causing a miscarriage. This would be for all women, not just pregnant women. I'm not in the US but I'm bleeping horrified and I weep for every woman in America (should we just call it Gilead now?)...I can't fathom how any of this is happening.

No, we should not call America Gilead now. Or Afghanistan, or any of the other daft things people are saying.

Sorry, but this Reddit thing sounds like total panic-mongering rubbish to me, and just because someone says it doesn’t mean it’s true. The police are not suddenly going to pop up and haul you off to jail for having a miscarriage or a hysterectomy.

ALL this new ruling says is that the decision to provide abortion services is properly dealt with by state parliaments, which are elected by the people of that state. That’s it! It does not outlaw or stop a person from having an abortion. It says that this decision should be made by democratically elected state parliaments, which are directed mandated by the people, rather than imposed by an unelected Supreme Court from afar. In legal terms it corrects a ruling made in 1973 in which the Supreme Court “found” a right to abortion in the Constitution (based on an interpretation of individual freedom) that doesn’t actually exist in a pure reading of the law. And it’s the job of the SC to interpret the constitution. Isn’t it important, from a legal and political perspective, to get the law right?

So it could be argued that this is a MORE democratic approach: individuals get to decide on whether or not they want their state to provide abortions. Federal law - ruling that is imposed on everyone - comes at a price, which is why no administration has touched this or attempted to impose a law that guarantees abortion rights for all. That’s the thing about big sweeping federal laws - great when you personally agree with and inescapably awful when you don’t - and can always be reversed.

Is this a difficult, complex, sensitive and emotive topic - yes. Does the media fan the flames of excessive outrage by completely failing to explain things properly and acting like a bunch of activists? Yes (as usual). Will individual states now have to work this through at a local level which may well be a difficult and painful process - yes. What will the long term outcome be - who knows?! Maybe Mississippi will vote to have abortion and the state parliament will be forced to provide more than one clinic in the entire state.

 

[Eureka]

Why did you get pregnant if you didn’t want a baby? At the age of 40 you should have known how to prevent pregnancy.

Judgemental much?

 

[Blond3g1rl]

Why did you get pregnant if you didn’t want a baby? At the age of 40 you should have known how to prevent pregnancy.

Seriously?!

 

[mcfeez]

Why did you get pregnant if you didn’t want a baby? At the age of 40 you should have known how to prevent pregnancy.

What a ridiculous comment

No, we should not call America Gilead now. Or Afghanistan, or any of the other daft things people are saying.

Sorry, but this Reddit thing sounds like total panic-mongering rubbish to me, and just because someone says it doesn’t mean it’s true. The police are not suddenly going to pop up and haul you off to jail for having a miscarriage or a hysterectomy.

ALL this new ruling says is that the decision to provide abortion services is properly dealt with by state parliaments, which are elected by the people of that state. That’s it! It does not outlaw or stop a person from having an abortion. It says that this decision should be made by democratically elected state parliaments, which are directed mandated by the people, rather than imposed by an unelected Supreme Court from afar. In legal terms it corrects a ruling made in 1973 in which the Supreme Court “found” a right to abortion in the Constitution (based on an interpretation of individual freedom) that doesn’t actually exist in a pure reading of the law. And it’s the job of the SC to interpret the constitution. Isn’t it important, from a legal and political perspective, to get the law right?

So it could be argued that this is a MORE democratic approach: individuals get to decide on whether or not they want their state to provide abortions. Federal law - ruling that is imposed on everyone - comes at a price, which is why no administration has touched this or attempted to impose a law that guarantees abortion rights for all. That’s the thing about big sweeping federal laws - great when you personally agree with and inescapably awful when you don’t - and can always be reversed.

Is this a difficult, complex, sensitive and emotive topic - yes. Does the media fan the flames of excessive outrage by completely failing to explain things properly and acting like a bunch of activists? Yes (as usual). Will individual states now have to work this through at a local level which may well be a difficult and painful process - yes. What will the long term outcome be - who knows?! Maybe Mississippi will vote to have abortion and the state parliament will be forced to provide more than one clinic in the entire state.

There are a large number of states had trigger laws in place to automatically make abortion illegal at the overturning of Roe v Wade. Why would those states legislate to provide legal access to abortion now just because it is in the hands of their state govts? I think some of your comments come across a bit naive. The SC will soon hear a case which essentially makes heavy gerry mandering (to keep the Republicans in, ofc) and voter suppression much easier to do and people are in no doubt as to which way they are leaning so I very much disagree they are for "democracy"

 

[kittenattack]

Why did you get pregnant if you didn’t want a baby? At the age of 40 you should have known how to prevent pregnancy.

Don't be stupid, accidents happen, I'm not going into the details for obvious reasons.

 

[DottyP]

Why did you get pregnant if you didn’t want a baby? At the age of 40 you should have known how to prevent pregnancy.

And that was the most constructive comment you could think of to sum up this whole debate?

 

[Lady_H]

What a ridiculous comment



There are a large number of states had trigger laws in place to automatically make abortion illegal at the overturning of Roe v Wade. Why would those states legislate to provide legal access to abortion now just because it is in the hands of their state govts? I think some of your comments come across a bit naive. The SC will soon hear a case which essentially makes heavy gerry mandering (to keep the Republicans in, ofc) and voter suppression much easier to do and people are in no doubt as to which way they are leaning so I very much disagree they are for "democracy"

All I’ve done is explain the situation because I think it is massively misunderstood. I said that it could be argued it’s more democratic and on paper it is: what is more democratic than giving the people the right to vote for something rather than imposing something on them from above? That’s what democracy is.

The states you mention won’t legislate to allow abortion currently - you’re right. But voters will get an opportunity to vote in pro-abortion state representatives at the appropriate time. If they do that, the law will change. If they don’t, it won’t.

Please note that I’m not saying that the outcome of all this is clear, or good, because it’s currently unknown. I’m just in favour of people properly understanding what is fact, and what is hyped-up media-led nonsense.

BIB - Which “people” are in no doubt as to which way they are leaning? “People” talk all sorts of balls, particularly during US election season. “People” are quite often brilliant at talking themselves into a complete frenzy and making 2+2=5 (“next they’ll come for hysterectomies”) based on absolutely nothing. As this gerrymandering ruling hasn’t happened yet, how can you possibly draw conclusions from it about its implications, or the intentions of the Supreme Court regarding democracy?

 

[kittenattack]

Maybe not hysterectomy, but what about IUDs? These prevent a possibly fertilised egg from being able to implant. The forced birthers aren't going to like these at all.

 

[Lady_H]

“Forced birthers” do not sit on the Supreme Court.

Justice Clarence Thomas has written that ALTHOUGH THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT INTEND TO DO SO, because this whole thing is based on an interpretation of what the Constitution says about individual freedom, the same logic could be (I repeat COULD BE not will be) applied to same sex marriage and and other issues.

FWIW Thomas is hated by the liberal MSM, held up as a kind of scary evil right-wing Nazi etc etc boogy-man, and often misquoted. A few weeks ago they were all over him for erroneous comments made about the Covid vaccine, which as it turns out he was quoting from others rather than putting forward as his own viewpoint.

Roe v Wade was never a plausible legal argument,
The Constitution never guaranteed abortion,
and everyone knew that when the original judges were replaced with more conservative ones who followed the letter of the law, it would be revoked. That time is now.

There is a reason people like Kamala Harris are ringing the alarm bells and the “next they’ll come for” rhetoric is going at full blast. It’s election year.

I’m terms of women’s rights, frankly I am equally concerned by Biden’s SC appointment, Ketanji
Brown Jackson, who was unable to define what a woman is “because she’s not a biologist”.

 

[mcfeez]

All I’ve done is explain the situation because I think it is massively misunderstood. I said that it could be argued it’s more democratic and on paper it is: what is more democratic than giving the people the right to vote for something rather than imposing something on them from above? That’s what democracy is.

The states you mention won’t legislate to allow abortion currently - you’re right. But voters will get an opportunity to vote in pro-abortion state representatives at the appropriate time. If they do that, the law will change. If they don’t, it won’t.

Please note that I’m not saying that the outcome of all this is clear, or good, because it’s currently unknown. I’m just in favour of people properly understanding what is fact, and what is hyped-up media-led nonsense.

BIB - Which “people” are in no doubt as to which way they are leaning? “People” talk all sorts of balls, particularly during US election season. “People” are quite often brilliant at talking themselves into a complete frenzy and making 2+2=5 (“next they’ll come for hysterectomies”) based on absolutely nothing. As this gerrymandering ruling hasn’t happened yet, how can you possibly draw conclusions from it about its implications, or the intentions of the Supreme Court regarding democracy?

Representatives who will afford them the right to abortion will never be elected due to restrictions and rules on voting set in place continuously by the Republican party at the state level. The conservative right of the US don't want true democracy as it threatens their power.

The SC agreeing to hear the case at all is dangerous.

 

[Slaybutter]

I’m terms of women’s rights, frankly I am equally concerned by Biden’s SC appointment, Ketanji
Brown Jackson, who was unable to define what a woman is “because she’s not a biologist”.

I can’t imagine being a TERF whose only political point is keep the willies out.

ps Why are you so against demonstrative solidarity??

 

[Lady_H]

ps Why are you so against demonstrative solidarity??

Don’t understand what this means, sorry.

 

[Slaybutter]

Don’t understand what this means, sorry.

In the US women won their right to vote by building coalitions like Susan B. Anthony did.

Things like women’s right to vote weren’t granted by the constitution. They were fought for. It’s the same way any legislation gets passed by people showing solidarity. I think your attitude of being passive when it comes to other people’s rights is misguided because if you don’t stand up for theirs who will stand up for yours?

 

[Lady_H]

Representatives who will afford them the right to abortion will never be elected due to restrictions and rules on voting set in place continuously by the Republican party at the state level. The conservative right of the US don't want true democracy as it threatens their power.

BIB - I just don’t know about the truth of this; given that the Democrats won across the board in the last election, the Republican campaign to deny true democracy doesn’t seem to be going very well! And know that liberals fear this to be the case, but conservatives feel exactly, word-for-word, the same way about the far-left Democrats. Maybe the extreme wing of any political movement probably feels this way - but most people are not on the extremes.

I guess this also assumes that no Republican led state will uphold abortion rights. That’s not the case at the moment but I guess we’ll have to see what happens. In swing states, that would

 

[mcfeez]

BIB - I just don’t know about the truth of this; given that the Democrats won across the board in the last election, the Republican campaign to deny true democracy doesn’t seem to be going very well! And know that liberals fear this to be the case, but conservatives feel exactly, word-for-word, the same way about the far-left Democrats. Maybe the extreme wing of any political movement probably feels this way - but most people are not on the extremes.

I guess this also assumes that no Republican led state will uphold abortion rights. That’s not the case at the moment but I guess we’ll have to see what happens. In swing states, that would

I was referring to state legislatures of which the Republicans hold 30 vs the Dems 17 i.e. who will be legislating or not legislating on abortion. How is holding nearly twice the number showing it "isn't going well" ??

 

[kalechips]

So it could be argued that this is a MORE democratic approach: individuals get to decide on whether or not they want their state to provide abortions.

How does that leave it up to the individual though? Women's bodies just shouldnt be legislated, period. There's nothing democratic about what's happening right now, and you seem oddly cavalier about women's right to choose being taken away from them. Wake up

 

[witchofwestbyfleet]

I was shocked to discover that even in the UK you are still expected to have two doctors state the pregnancy poses a risk to physical/mental health before you can have an abortion (other countries including Australia do not do this) and that police investigate cases of "unauthorised" or "unapproved" abortion e.g. ordering pills online. Although I think the latter is more to do with the idea that the state should be involved in pregnancy at every stage - like how you can be investigated if you do not tell a doctor about the pregnancy by 20 weeks, or reported to social services if you are judged not to be "complying" with antenatal care

A friend until recently lived in Japan and she had a pregnancy scare as her marriage was ending, there was thankfully no baby but in Japan you still can't get many forms of contraception, or an abortion, without the consent of the father (or unless you can convince them that grape was involved / you have no way to contact the father.) My friend said if she had been pregnant she would have gone private and told them she did not know who the father was, no idea if that would have worked though. Although interestingly - given the recent "victory for white life" controversy in the US - Japanese politicians have openly stated that making abortion easier wouldn't be in the country's best interests due to the low birth rate. And I think that's what's motivating a lot of this worldwide, the idea that if there aren't enough babies or the "right" people aren't having enough babies we must force women to have them

 

[Lady_H]

In the US women won their right to vote by building coalitions like Susan B. Anthony did.

View attachment 1385903
Things like women’s right to vote weren’t granted by the constitution. They were fought for. It’s the same way any legislation gets passed by people showing solidarity. I think your attitude of being passive when it comes to other people’s rights is misguided because if you don’t stand up for theirs who will stand up for yours?

Well I guess they’re going to have to get organised and join together in “demonstrative solidarity” on a state level then.

Presumably that will have to involve “building coalitions” with people they don’t agree with, perhaps including women who don’t want abortion rights in their own state. How will that work if the opposition is continually being berated and demonised? That level if outrage does not work. It entrenches people even more deeply in their own beliefs. It hasn’t worked for 50 years.

I don’t think trying to properly understand this topic from all sides is being passive. I’ve read and thought about this subject a lot, I used to live in the US and that made me very interested in the country. Passive to me is jumping on a bandwagon of “everything is terrible, the sky is falling in, next they’ll come for [insert emotive issue here]” based on a Marie Clare article. It doesn’t help. Nobody ever made a good decision in a state of panic.

Anyway the attitude of little old me in a market town in the U.K. isn’t going to make much difference to abortion rights in the US. I actually don’t think it’s necessarily up to me to fight for the rights of people in different countries with cultures, customs and legal systems that I don’t fully understand. I know that goes against the prevailing attitude that everyone has to involved with every injustice everywhere, but to do so smacks of arrogance, in my opinion. But I could be wrong. What are others here doing to fight for US abortion rights?