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

[Frelga]

But many of those same people effectively stop caring about the unborn the moment they become born

This.

They don't care about the unborn, either, beyond asserting the ownership of the mother who carries it. If they truly cared about the unborn, then top of the agenda would have been free health care and universal income (at a minimum for people who can get pregnant), which would give the unborn the best chance of being safely carried to term.

Post-birth? 192 Republicans voted against providing funding to the Food and Drug Administration to address the shortage of baby formula.

Eta: here's the graph of maternal mortality I quoted earlier. It will get worse.

20220625_085702.jpg (68.34 KiB) Viewed 2048 times

[N.E. Brigand]

A warning about this cartoon which adorns the front page of the French newspaper Libération, showing a modified U.S. flag: it's graphic. The headline is "The Black Friday," to give you a sense of how yesterday's decision is being perceived overseas.

In response to that news and to statements from French President Emmanuel Macron, some people have noted that the Mississippi law struck down yesterday was less restrictive of abortion than French law. That's true! But:

(1) France has much more robust maternal and neonatal health care services than the U.S. (as might be assumed from the image Frelga shares above: nearly three times as many women die in childbirth in the U.S. than in France); and

(2) If yesterday's decision went only as far as John Roberts wanted, the forced-birthers might have a point, but within hours of yesterday's decision, multiple states banned abortion entirely (e.g. Missouri, Texas), or at much earlier times (e.g., here in Ohio, where it's now six weeks, which is before many women even know they're pregnant).

[N.E. Brigand]

The responses to the following Twitter poll are naturally skewed! Joy Reid is an MSNBC host with a decidedly liberal following:



But this is the sort of question that people are going to have to ask again and again and again now. If you run a company that operates in a state where half of your employees have just lost a very important kind of health care -- and where they will be punished for seeking that health care out of state -- what are you going to do to keep from losing them? If you're planning a conference, could you in good conscience schedule it in one of those states, knowing that one of your attendees might end up like that poor U.S. citizen in Malta mentioned here a few days ago?

[N.E. Brigand]

A Utah state legislator named Karianne Lisonbee, who is a Republican, pushed back against criticism of her support for abortion bans:

"[Some people claim] that I clearly don't trust women enough to make choices to control their own body. And my response is I do trust women enough to control when they allow a man to ejaculate inside of them and control that intake of semen."

[N.E. Brigand]

Columnist Michelle Goldberg writing in the New York Times:

"In countries that ban abortion –- and I've been to many of them -- you constantly see miscarriages investigated and in some cases, criminalized, because the line between a miscarriage and an abortion is not clear ... This is dangerous, not just for women who are going to affirmatively try to end unwanted pregnancies. It is dangerous for any woman who might get pregnant, period."

[Frelga]

Pregnancy is an extreme sport even under ideal conditions, but I can't imagine deciding to get pregnant in the US right now. Even if your state currently provides health care, how could you be sure that this will continue for the next 9 months and that you won't be left to die from easily treatable complications?

[River]

The line between a miscarriage and an abortion isn't clear because it isn't there. The technical term for a miscarriage is "spontaneous abortion". I think the current statistic for spontaneous abortion is 1/5 or 1/6 (in known pregnancies; no one has any idea how often an egg gets fertilized but doesn't implant and trigger a positive pregnancy test). Sometimes the issue can be pinned on a chromosomal anomaly, an anatomic defect in the mother, a badly timed infection or injury, or substance use, but other times the pregnancy just aborts for no known cause. For some women, it happens repeatedly. Sometimes, doctors can figure out why recurrent, spontaneous abortions happen and sometimes they can't. It's heartbreaking. Subjecting women with these issues to criminal investigation because of a strict law that stands between a woman and her OB/GYN is cruelty. And depending on how the new, super restrictive laws are written, assistive reproductive technologies some couples with fertility problems turn to so they can bear a living child may be off the table. In other words, children that could be born won't be.

[Frelga]

And other times, a woman's body does not expel the improperly implanted cell sack or a demised fetus, which then requires a medical abortion. If a provider fears prosecution, they are likely to endanger the mother's life rather than provide care.

Even where the exceptions for danger to mother's life are made, in practice it means "in the process of actively dying." And sometimes they get it wrong, and she dies anyway, or ends up with a lifelong disability. Incidentally, eradicating any children she may have had in the future.

[Cerin]

In response to that news and to statements from French President Emmanuel Macron, some people have noted that the Mississippi law struck down yesterday was less restrictive of abortion than French law. That's true!

The irony here is very deep. Had the recently proposed bill on abortion been as sensible as the French law (and the laws of many other countries), Joe Manchin would have voted for it and all of the worries voiced here would have been moot. He says he would even have voted for a law that codified Roe (that is, abortion until viability), but that wasn't good enough for the Democrats, who insisted that abortion must be legal until the moment before birth.

edit: oops! forgot about the filibuster

[N.E. Brigand]

In response to that news and to statements from French President Emmanuel Macron, some people have noted that the Mississippi law struck down yesterday was less restrictive of abortion than French law. That's true! But:

(1) France has much more robust maternal and neonatal health care services than the U.S. (as might be assumed from the image Frelga shares above: nearly three times as many women die in childbirth in the U.S. than in France); and

(2) If yesterday's decision went only as far as John Roberts wanted, the forced-birthers might have a point, but within hours of yesterday's decision, multiple states banned abortion entirely (e.g. Missouri, Texas), or at much earlier times (e.g., here in Ohio, where it's now six weeks, which is before many women even know they're pregnant).

Regarding the bolded point: abortion is also much easier to obtain in European countries that limit abortions (other than those needed for the mother's health) to the first trimester.

[N.E. Brigand]

In response to that news and to statements from French President Emmanuel Macron, some people have noted that the Mississippi law struck down yesterday was less restrictive of abortion than French law. That's true!

The irony here is very deep. Had the recently proposed bill on abortion been as sensible as the French law (and the laws of many other countries), Joe Manchin would have voted for it and all of the worries voiced here would have been moot. He says he would even have voted for a law that codified Roe (that is, abortion until viability), but that wasn't good enough for the Democrats, who insisted that abortion must be legal until the moment before birth.

edit: oops! forgot about the filibuster

Well, here's the official summary from Congress.gov of the bill that Manchin voted down:

This bill prohibits governmental restrictions on the provision of, and access to, abortion services.

Specifically, governments may not limit a provider's ability to

• prescribe certain drugs,

• offer abortion services via telemedicine, or

• immediately provide abortion services when the provider determines a delay risks the patient's health.

Furthermore, governments may not require a provider to

• perform unnecessary medical procedures,

• provide medically inaccurate information,

• comply with credentialing or other conditions that do not apply to providers whose services are medically comparable to abortions, or

• carry out all services connected to an abortion.

In addition, governments may not (1) require patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or disclose their reasons for obtaining such services, or (2) prohibit abortion services before fetal viability or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient's life or health.

The bill also prohibits other governmental measures that are similar to the bill's specified restrictions or that otherwise single out and impede access to abortion services, unless a government demonstrates that the measure significantly advances the safety of abortion services or health of patients and cannot be achieved through less restrictive means.

The Department of Justice, individuals, or providers may bring a lawsuit to enforce this bill, and states are not immune from suits for violations.

The bill applies to restrictions imposed both prior and subsequent to the bill's enactment.

So it appears from that summary that only abortions up until viability are protected, except in cases where the mother's life is at risk.

In other words, as far as I can tell, the bill merely codifies Roe.

The full text of the bill is available at the link. After you have a chance to review it, I hope you will share your further thoughts on it.

[N.E. Brigand]

That said, Josh Barro, a very centrist columnist (he switched his party registration from Republican to Democrat in October 2016), recommends that Democrats in Congress try again with separate bills that codify various popular elements of abortion protection:

As soon as possible, force Republicans to vote on matters like:

-a federal right to abortion in the first trimester,

-a federal right to abortion in cases of rape and incest,

-a federal prohibition on criminal penalties for women who seek or obtain abortions, and

-a federal prohibition on criminal penalties for non-providers who assist women in seeking or obtaining abortions.

This is not anywhere close to an exhaustive list. Unlike a catch-all bill, there are many individual ideas about protecting abortion rights that are very broadly popular — bringing them to the floor puts Republicans in the position of either voting for policies to protect abortion rights, or going home to defend votes that are actually hard to defend in election campaigns.

I think he's right that Democrats need to do this now. Just as with the gun bill that passed Congress, even on the most urgent issues, sometimes you have to compromise.

[River]

The pro-choice position post point-of-viability is to keep the government out of family tragedies. We live in a pluralistic society. The US has no state-sponsored religion and is not a religion-sponsored state. Not everyone follows the same religious doctrine and not every religious doctrine takes the same view on when life begins and whose life takes priority in pregnancy. When pregnancy goes haywire, nothing good comes of taking options off the table. If an individual pregnant woman rejects an option, so be it. She chose.

The medical ethicists have had their say and doctors won't terminate a pregnancy after the point of viability outside some truly terrible circumstances and even then the cut-off is 36 weeks. Clinics that perform this kind of procedure are rare. Demand is low even in areas where it's legal and not many doctors are willing to do it. I happen live in one of the few places where one such clinic exists. The most common story I've heard about or read about late term terminations is a terrible birth defect found too late. If it's "just" a life-threatening diagnosis for the mother the usual course is to try to save them both. Modern NICUs make miracles.

Another reason 15 weeks is a bad cut-off is you leave women who have a placental abruption or rupture of the amniotic sac after that cut-off but before the point-of-viability in a difficult position. If the placenta comes loose, the pregnancy is over and the mother will most likely bleed to death if doctors wait around for the fetal heart to stop. If the membranes rupture, the pregnancy is over and the mother is likely to develop a life- or fertility-threatening infection if doctors wait around for the fetal heart to stop. So basically, you sacrifice the mom and her potential to bear further children for a baby that will never exist in exchange for what? A slightly more robust funeral industry? I see no logic or compassion in this. Only misogyny and cruelty. I'm surprised fathers tolerate it in places where this kind of thing is the norm. Maybe they just assume it won't be their wife on the table.

[N.E. Brigand]

Journalism fail by Fox News here, as the reporter's description of the crowd outside the Supreme Court utterly does not match what the camera shows:



It's true that in 2020, protest sites were sometimes calm during the day and violent at night. But that's not the case here.

But at least he characterizes this evening protest as peaceful toward the end.

[Frelga]

Journalism fail by Fox News here, as the reporter's description of the crowd outside the Supreme Court utterly does not match what the camera shows:

Did you mean, propaganda win?

35 hour work week, minimum 16 weeks maternity leave, 6-10 weeks paid vacation. This is what makes the situation in France more sensible and keeps maternal mortality down. Not the anti-abortion laws.

Yet the anti-breathing-people party has fought tooth and nail against anything that would help to reduce maternal and infant mortality and reduce the need for abortions. This video may explain why.



Jane Eliot quotes a presidential adviser from the 80s who is worried that population trends are against white supremacy. Provide healthcare? It would help people of color, too. Increase immigration? Most people who wants to come to the US aren't white. But most abortions (he claims) are to white women, so banning them is his solution.

[Cerin]

In response to that news and to statements from French President Emmanuel Macron, some people have noted that the Mississippi law struck down yesterday was less restrictive of abortion than French law. That's true!

The irony here is very deep. Had the recently proposed bill on abortion been as sensible as the French law (and the laws of many other countries), Joe Manchin would have voted for it and all of the worries voiced here would have been moot. He says he would even have voted for a law that codified Roe (that is, abortion until viability), but that wasn't good enough for the Democrats, who insisted that abortion must be legal until the moment before birth.edit: oops! forgot about the filibuster

The full text of the bill is available at the link. After you have a chance to review it, I hope you will share your further thoughts on it.

I did not take the time to read the bill you very kindly provided the link for, as your quoted portion was sufficient for this reply. Regarding the text you quoted in your post, there was a portion that mentioned health as well as life (emphasis added):

In addition, governments may not <snip> (2) prohibit abortion services before fetal viability or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient's life or health.

I'm sure you know that this has long been a point of objection in the abortion debate, because health includes mental health, and (as the argument goes) a woman can simply say she is depressed about the pregnancy the day before her due date and that will legally be enough, etc.

I've never heard anyone laud the intellectual and/or legal merits of the Roe opinion. I (not being a constitutional scholar) don't believe there is a constitutional right to abortion. I think a federal law acknowledging reality, which limited elective abortion to the first trimester and protected the mother's life at anytime thereafter (as a person under law, which a fetus is not) would balance the mother's interests and responsibilities, would be representative of the nation's concerns and could pass a normal legislative body and be acceptable to a majority of Americans. However, I don't see this kind of sensible legislation coming out of our current House or Senate.

In the meantime, there is help being offered by states and companies to those stuck in states with abortion bans. I don't think despair is ever a useful strategy. The anti-abortion forces (not speaking of those who turned to violence) were patient, persistent and determined over five decades on an issue they view as passionately from their side as you do from yours. I hope the Left will now follow the same kind of strategy, rather than forcing some kind of a constitutional crisis.

edit: cross-posted with your later post

[N.E. Brigand]

As noted here, of the justices who overturned Roe v. Wade yesterday, it's the decision's author, Samuel Alito, who most clearly lied about Roe in his Senate confirmation hearings. He said he would apply stare decisis first in any such case. That's not what he did in this ruling.

Although I suppose he could claim he's just changed his mind in the intervening sixteen years.

[Frelga]

The anti-abortion forces (not speaking of those who turned to violence) were patient, persistent and determined over five decades on an issue they view as passionately from their side as you do from yours.

Saying that anti-abortion forces "waited patiently, not speaking about murdered doctors, bombed clinics, and constant threats and harassment of patients" is like saying that the colonies waited patiently for England to give them the rights they wanted, not speaking of the Revolutionary War.

This thread is a heart-breaking story of a woman whose life Dr. Tiller saved when she developed a detached placenta. Dr. Tiller was later murdered by an anti-abortion terrorist.

[N.E. Brigand]

The irony here is very deep. Had the recently proposed bill on abortion been as sensible as the French law (and the laws of many other countries), Joe Manchin would have voted for it and all of the worries voiced here would have been moot. He says he would even have voted for a law that codified Roe (that is, abortion until viability), but that wasn't good enough for the Democrats, who insisted that abortion must be legal until the moment before birth.edit: oops! forgot about the filibuster

The full text of the bill is available at the link. After you have a chance to review it, I hope you will share your further thoughts on it.

I did not take the time to read the bill you very kindly provided the link for, as your quoted portion was sufficient for this reply. Regarding the text you quoted in your post, there was a portion that mentioned health as well as life (emphasis added):

In addition, governments may not <snip> (2) prohibit abortion services before fetal viability or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient's life or health.

I'm sure you know that this has long been a point of objection in the abortion debate, because health includes mental health, and (as the argument goes) a woman can simply say she is depressed about the pregnancy the day before her due date and that will legally be enough, etc.

Whoa! Where did those goalposts go?

The claim was that Joe Manchin would have voted for a bill that (a) permitted abortions with limitations like those imposed in France or (b) codified Roe.

The bill whose text that I provided, which Joe Manchin voted against, codifies Roe.

Sure, conservatives have long expressed concerns about the misuse of "health". Per Roe, in the third trimester of a pregnancy, i.e., "For the stage subsequent to viability," Roe says that "the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother" (emphasis added).

Maybe that part of Roe is wrong (I don't think it is), but that's not the claim that we were discussing.

(Edited to add: But since you brought it up, consider the Breyer/Kagan/Sotomayor dissent in Dobbs, which says that globally the trend "has been toward increased provision of legal and safe abortion care. A number of countries, including New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Iceland, permit abortions up to a roughly similar time as Roe ... Canada has decriminalized abortion at any point in a pregnancy" (I would add: for any reason, and it's federally funded). And while Western European nations mostly "impose restrictions on abortion after 12 to 14 weeks ... they often have liberal exceptions to those time limits, including to prevent harm to a woman's physical or mental health" (emphasis added).)

[Frelga]

Such patient. Many peaceful.

Rhode Island cop arrested for assault on political opponent at abortion rights rally after Supreme Court Roe ruling

A Providence, Rhode Island, police officer who had been running for state Senate was arrested on charges related to his alleged physical assault on his political opponent at an abortion rights rally.
The arrest of Jeann Lugo came hours after video of his alleged attack while off-duty on fellow Senate candidate Jen Rourke outside the Rhode Island State House went viral on Twitter.
The incident came at a protest over the Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion.