Roe v Wade has been overturned. How do you feel about that?

[Frelga]

I deal with HIPAA stuff a lot. They are really skirting the line there but it may be possible that they are not actually crossing it. A lot would depend on how they intend to use the information. Do I understand correctly that it's supposed to be posted online in it's raw form, rather than an aggregate?

It really appears that the only purpose of this law is to harrass women who are already under a lot of stress and pressure. As such, even if it's not illegal, it is still a weaselly, reprehensible action.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think it is illegal, even if it doesn't violate HIPAA, because I think it is unconstitutional. I just don't know if SCOTUS would agree with me.

[Lidless]

For me, Roe vs Wade can be summed up as right destination, wrong route.

[nerdanel]

The European Court of Human Rights struck a partial blow today in favor of women's rights by ruling that Ireland's strict anti-abortion law is in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights because it makes no exception for the mother's life. The applicant is a Lithuanian woman, resident in Ireland, who suffers from a rare form of cancer. She feared that her cancer could relapse during her pregnancy if she reduced her treatment, and that her fetus would be harmed if she did not.

It remains to be seen whether Ireland will change its laws to comply with the ruling (as it is obligated to do as a matter of international law). The country was also ordered to pay the applicant 15,000 Euros (USD 20,000) in compensation. Apparently the Irish Supreme Court ruled similarly to the ECTHR eighteen years ago (in a case involving a minor who had been raped needing to travel abroad to obtain an abortion), and the Irish legislature has not yet found time to change the law.

The ECTHR, however, did not go as far as it should have. Two other Irish women who had traveled abroad for abortions but whose health was not at risk did not receive any relief in its ruling. I have yet to read the decision, but I expect this will relate to the "margin of appreciation" for member states' national laws that the ECTHR has writ large in the past on this issue. Given the lack of European consensus with respect to how best to balance the rights of women and fetuses, the court has been reluctant to construe the relevant Convention provisions broadly in favor of affected women.

This case showcases the consequences that lack of "consensus" can wreak on the autonomy, freedom, and dignity of adult women. It is why I continue to believe that, although we in the United States may be plagued with uncertainty surrounding the longevity of the Roe v. Wade decision, uncertainty + clear constitutional right is FAR preferable to certainty that there is no clear, binding right, which is the current international situation in Europe (though the matter has been clearly resolved in favor of women in particular member states).

The NYT article is here.

[Alatar]

Not our finest hour. Unfortunately, there have been two National Referendums on this, and in both cases the legislation to allow abortion has been defeated. Even more depressingly, its not because of deep seated beliefs in the evils of abortion, but rather because it was preached from the pulpit. Still, I like to think that it was 20 years ago, and my generation would pass a referendum if held today. But who knows?

It does, however, beg the question of who has the right to enforce their values on our country? While I happen to agree with Nel in this instance (with some reservation), if I did not I'm sure I would be bridling at the suggestion that someone else should force their moral code upon us when we, as a Nation, voted against it.

[nerdanel]

It does, however, beg the question of who has the right to enforce their values on our country? While I happen to agree with Nel in this instance (with some reservation), if I did not I'm sure I would be bridling at the suggestion that someone else should force their moral code upon us when we, as a Nation, voted against it.

And this, my friend, is why (as I posted in response to Mahima earlier in the week), I am cautiously on the side of my government when it prefers to rely on our domestic Constitution rather than international human rights documents in order to determine what our human rights standards will be. "Cautiously" - because I think the ECTHR reaches so many of the right outcomes that if we submitted to the jurisdiction of a similar, hypothetical supranational court we might be a more advanced society from the standpoint of human rights protection. (I say "hypothetical" because the IACHR is not an equivalent to the ECTHR. It's also hypothetical because the current incarnation of the US will never, ever submit to the jurisdiction of such a supranational court.)

However, I would only favor having an ECTHR-like body that could make proclamations concerning my government that bind the latter in international law ... to the extent that I agree substantively with those proclamations. This forces me to be honest with myself about the fact that I must not really favor the setup at all; I'm just merely anxious to keep the ball rolling in areas like abortion, gay rights, physician-assisted suicide, prohibitions on state-sanctioned torture/inhumane and degrading treatment, right to privacy, right to respect for family life, and so on. The truth is, I want to see our Supreme Court and elected branches vindicate those rights fully - I don't particularly want them to be directed to do so by a higher authority made up mostly of non-Americans. And as a quick digression, that is why, vis-a-vis the UK, I am floored that it has spurned the protection of rights via a codified constitution partly because it needs to allow for "flexible" "evolution" of rights understandings via parliamentary sovereignty -- but yet feels comfortable submitting to the human rights dictates (however inflexible) of a supranational body comprised largely of non-Britons many of whom are not even part of a common law tradition.

But as for Ireland and the question of who has the right to enforce its values on your country: you signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, did you not? So you effectively agreed that an external authority interpreting rights through the lens of "European consensus" could in fact, via international law, direct your country to amend its laws.

[Túrin Turambar]

Per Crispycreme on TORC, the South Dakota legislature is currently considering an ingenious work-around for Roe v Wade: a bill that will make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions.

Essentially, killing someone to prevent them harming an unborn person (in the language of the bill) will be considered justifiable homicide. I have no idea what sort of support it has. I'm seriously impressed by the lateral thinking it displays, at any rate.

[Hachimitsu]

I had only heard of something in the US where some bill or something was trying to deny tax breaks to employers whoses insurance companies funded abortion. Which I thought was pretty sick, but this takes the cake.

So is this justifable homicide is under the idea that the one being attacked can't defend itself?

[Maria]

Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.

So if someone was trying to swing a baseball bat at your pregnant friend's belly, you can't justifiably kill them? You can only defend unborn children of immediate family & masters, mistresses and servants? Sounds like that bill needs a bit more thought.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The bill has been amended to clarify that it only applies to the pregnant woman herself, not to anyone else. It would, for instance, make it justifiable homicide for a woman to kill someone who was trying to destroy her fetus by attacking her. Nothing to see here.

[axordil]

To be fair, there's some astoundingly stupid state legislators out there. It's an American tradition. I mean, we have one woman from the burbs near STL who wants to get rid of child labor laws.

[Inanna]

To be fair, there's some astoundingly stupid state legislators out there. It's an American tradition. I mean, we have one woman from the burbs near STL who wants to get rid of child labor laws.

In the words of Sam Vimes "Where's the money?"

[Frelga]

The bill has been amended to clarify that it only applies to the pregnant woman herself, not to anyone else. It would, for instance, make it justifiable homicide for a woman to kill someone who was trying to destroy her fetus by attacking her. Nothing to see here.

How is that different from the woman defending herself from someone attacking her in the first place?

Also, I don't see the clarification in the text, which Maria quoted.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The amendment is not shown in that text. And while I don't know South Dakota's law specifically, my assumption is that this bill would not actually make any practical change to already existing law. As I said before, nothing to see here.

[Túrin Turambar]

John Madigan, Senator for Victoria, recently moved a bill to cut Medicare funding for abortions based on gender-selection.

I have no idea how it would be enforced, but that aside, let’s look at the issues. Madigan represents the Democratic Labor Party, a very small party with an almost exclusively working-class Catholic base, and he is unashamedly pro-life. Obviously he wants to see abortion heavily-restricted or banned across the country, but criminal laws are in the power of the state parliaments so he can’t do anything about them. The Federal Government only has the ability to influence abortion policy through Medicare funding, and Madigan would want to see the procedure de-funded in general. But he knows that he could never get such a bill through the Parliament, so he has chosen a smaller target. I don’t think he will get this one up for practical reasons either, but I’ll keep going.

Sex-selective abortion is obviously a huge issue in China and India. In China, in particular, live births of boys are now outnumbering those of girls by ratios approaching 1.2 to 1. Madigan acknowledges that there is no data on that topic for Australia – some women here may seek abortion for this reason, but nobody knows how many.

But assuming that some were, and assuming that they could be stopped, it raises an interesting question – even if a woman should have a right to choose, are there legitimate and illegitimate reasons for making that choice? Is choosing to abort a fetus because it is a girl and she comes from a culture which values daughters less than sons a less legitimate reason than because, say, she can’t support a child of either gender? Authorities in China and India have made attempts to restrict the practice on policy grounds. For example, restricting access to ultrasounds that show the gender of the fetus. These laws face huge enforcement issues. But where then does the division between public policy and private choice lie?

[axordil]

Ultimately the only answer is for the cultures in question to change such that a premium is no longer placed on male children, which would require deep economic restructuring along with the social change.

Getting to that point is obviously the problem.

[JewelSong]

The discussion about Obama and race veered off into abortion rates...so rather than derail that thread, I decided to copy and paste what I wrote here.

Abortion, access to birth control and health care as well as comprehensive sex ed are all intertwined and one affects the other.

For some reason, in this country, we are reluctant to discuss sex outside of marriage or even admit that it ever happens.

Democrats have elevated single mother status to near sainthood

(We HAVE? Really? Who knew? )

I would think that having the stigma removed from single mothers would be a GOOD thing for people who want less abortions. If single and poor women were better supported during their pregnancies and they knew that their children had better access to healthcare and education as they grew up, the women would be less likely to abort an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy.

Countries that have the LEAST number of abortions per capita also have the BEST access to health care, pre-natal care, birth control and, yes, abortion. They also have comprehensive programs in sex education, starting at a very young age.

It is ironic to me that many people who are extremely anti-abortion are also in favor of somehow "punishing" single mothers and also against birth control and sex ed programs. It would seem (to me) that if you want LESS abortions, you would be in favor of putting policies and programs into place that reduce the possibility of an unplanned pregnancy and make it easier for women to raise an unplanned child, even if she is poor and/or single.

The primary organization that tries to accomplish this was founded by an admitted racist who spoke at KKK events and was worried people might think she wanted to exterminate black people... which is unclear. Further irony is provided by the fact she was extremely anti-abortion.

I believe you are talking about Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. Lots of misinformation in your words above...I will speak to that in a bit, if I can get my thoughts together to make a coherent post.

[JewelSong]

"When politicians limit access to safe abortions . . . the result is more women willing to accept any abortion they can get access to -- even if it’s a riskier one."

"And the whole thing smacks of hypocrisy. Because, in Texas and Ohio and all these states, if they really wanted to prevent abortions, they would make long-acting, reversible contraception free. Study after study after study shows that when women have access to long-acting contraception like IUDs, and when they don’t have financial or access barriers, their risk of abortion just plummets. The irony is that this is all just posturing. Because the answer is right there. If you actually wanted to make abortion very rare, the answer is there. It’s long-acting, reversible contraception."

From HERE

Warning: some graphic and specific descriptions of abortion procedures.[/url]

[Lalaith]

From a pro-life perspective, though, Jewel, an IUD would be an unacceptable form of birth control because it does not prevent conception; it merely prevents implantation (sometimes). IOW, it causes abortions. (The same issue exists but to a lesser degree with hormone contraceptives.)

It's just a point of clarification; it's not that I'm saying that contraception wouldn't be helpful.

[Dave_LF]

I'm sure people do reason that way, but for what it's worth, I really, really think it is...unhelpful to use the same word for the process of preventing a single-celled zygote from implanting in the womb and a surgical procedure that involves cutting up third trimester fetus.

(I also think the terms "pro life" and "pro choice" are unhelpful, and accomplish nothing except either shutting discussion down or escalating it into a fight. The whole topic is full of unhelpful language, which is why it's pretty much impossible to talk about it)