The Roe Countdown

[Dr. Keith]

We are sorry for all the misery women will have to endure, from not killing their babies.

I'm just wowed by the media's ability to change thinking on this topic.
40 years ago, not killing babies would be the mainstream logic. And abortions on demand would be the crazy kook logic.
Today: It seems as though those who are for not killing babies, are the kooks.

How did that happen?

Assuming you meant to convey "abortions" when you said "killing babies" and "at the mother's request during the first trimester" when you said "on demand" could you provide evidence for the highlighted?

 

[Belz...]

We are sorry for all the misery women will have to endure, from not killing their babies.

What babies?

 

[Meadmaker]

A couple of questions

Is there any law preventing a pregnant woman from travelling out of state or to Canada to get an abortion?

What is there to prevent a private hospital or abortion clinic in a state where abortion is legal from advertising for clients from states where abortion is illegal? They could do so via the internet.

NOTE: the domain http://pregnancytermination.com/ is available for purchase

No. And in the US, such a law would probably be unconditional.

 

[The Don]

Not the UK then, see Northern Ireland.

Exactly. Those parts of the UK which aren't in part run by a party which would like to see a protestant theocracy installed, the DUP, have access to abortion. The part that is in part run by the protestant Taliban, does.

 

[DragonLady]

I voted 2022.

However, I'm wondering...what are the chances the SCOTUS will do something entirely unexpected?

Could they rule something like: "Life begins with the first unaided breath" and completely nullify almost all the restrictions states have put in place?

 

[cosmicaug]

I voted 2022.

However, I'm wondering...what are the chances the SCOTUS will do something entirely unexpected?

Could they rule something like: "Life begins with the first unaided breath" and completely nullify almost all the restrictions states have put in place?

In the case of the Georgia law, if the US Supreme Court deferred to Georgia's interpretation or accepted that Georgia can interpret the issue in its own way (even if other states do not), you already would have a situation similar to what you suggest given that the Georgia law declares the embryo to be a legal person (although starting at 6 weeks, rather than at conception). I have no idea if the SCOTUS can do either of those things.

I would think that if you posit a second person to be in existence during most of a pregnancy, the Roe v. Wade argument becomes considerably weakened. If you are affording the embryo/fetus personhood it will have rights which I would think would supersede the mother's right to privacy upon which Roe v. Wade is based. However, IANAL so I don't know if what I am writing is nonsense.

 

[DragonLady]

I would think that if you posit a second person to be in existence during most of a pregnancy, the Roe v. Wade argument becomes considerably weakened.

Well...a fetus doesn't breathe. The first breath is usually taken at birth, unless something has gone horribly wrong.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting SCOTUS should do such a thing, just wondering if they can.

 

[cosmicaug]

Well...a fetus doesn't breathe. The first breath is usually taken at birth, unless something has gone horribly wrong.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting SCOTUS should do such a thing, just wondering if they can.

Brain malfunctioned and I did not read that correctly and instead replied to my concern.

 

[Dancing David]

Considering the number of miscarriages, I would say that God is the Grand Abortioner

 

[applecorped]

No worries global warming is going to kill everybody in the next 12 Years anyway

 

[d4m10n]

Not immediately, that will be hours later when they pass federal anti abortion laws, like how texas redistricted immediately after they removed the voting rights act.

Immediately in Alabama, Missouri, and any place else with anti-abortion laws on the books and DAs ready to enforce them.

 

[Baylor]

Can any of you be specific about which bit? Cos I just can't see it at all.

The entire OP is the usual histrionics+ hyperbole, self-righteousness and conspiracy theories pertaining to the US by a non-American.

 

[The Atheist]

Now not products of the United states, because that would mean not enjoying most media and a hell of a lot of products and that would require actual sacrifice.

Utter nonsense.

NZ trade with USA is a whopping 2% of our GDP, and aside from weapons I don't use, and cars I wouldn't touch with a barge-pole, I'd be hard pressed to think of anything sourced from USA sold in NZ.

Losing 12-tonne SUVs with V8 engines would be a tragedy for some, but I'd welcome it. As to media, all mine comes from independent sources rather than US, which I tend to avoid like the plague.

Sacrifice level = 0

And abortions on demand would be the crazy kook logic...

How did that happen?

I think we gave chicks the vote or something.

I voted 2022.

However, I'm wondering...what are the chances the SCOTUS will do something entirely unexpected?

Could they rule something like: "Life begins with the first unaided breath" and completely nullify almost all the restrictions states have put in place?

No.

No worries global warming is going to kill everybody in the next 12 Years anyway

My word, she really has got under your skin, hasn't she? What a superb effort from someone so young to be hated by so many people on the right. She's going to go far.

Seriously, making stupid allegations of what someone meant when they said what they actually meant very clearly, in a completely unrelated topic shows how much she's getting to you.

I'll certainly put her on my Xmas card list. Top woman.

 

[Robin]

Alternative argument...

Regardless of your position on abortion, Roe is a bad decision and should be overturned

That is a statement rather than an argument.

Would you like to expand and give your reasoning?

 

[Robin]

The entire OP is the usual histrionics+ hyperbole, self-righteousness and conspiracy theories pertaining to the US by a non-American.

Can you elucidate? Which thing that people are saying is wrong?

Did Alabama not just pass the most restrictive abortion law in the country? Is it not the case that part of the intent of this law was the challenge the Roe vs Wade decision?

If this law is allowed to stand and is found to be enforceable will that not effectively be an overturning of Roe vs Wade?

Does the United States not have a Supreme Court where the majority opinion is against the free access to abortion?

 

[The Atheist]

Pretty even split on the votes so far.

I wonder if Paddy Power's offering odds on it?

 

[qayak]

Because it's hip to hate the United States.

Or it could be that at this point in time the U.S. is the laughing stock of the Western World for good reason.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That is a statement rather than an argument.

Would you like to expand and give your reasoning?

One of the reasons: The trimester framework implemented by the court has no basis in the Constitution. In the same decision that they say they have no place to determine when a fetus becomes a person, they then do that by outlining both a right to privacy based on hardship (nonsense) and a compelling state interest to a fetus but only for three months.

Development is a continuous process. What basis do they have to tie their decision to the trimester system?

 

[Baylor]

Can you elucidate? Which thing that people are saying is wrong?

Sure. OP mentioned the Trump abortion conspiracy theory. He also mentioned the "white men" canard (OP definitely isn't racist though) when the only sure vote to overturn Roe v Wade is a black man, and the Latina is the wild card.

Did Alabama not just pass the most restrictive abortion law in the country? Is it not the case that part of the intent of this law was the challenge the Roe vs Wade decision?

Yes, but even if it does go into effect, it's not likely to be enforced. And Roe v Wade is not likely to be overturned. This comes from my American knowledge of the Supreme Court Justices, not bugman digital media outlets.

If this law is allowed to stand and is found to be enforceable will that not effectively be an overturning of Roe vs Wade?

This legislation appears to be a flex on Federal Supremacy, not "an attack on women's rights." This is how many non-bugman Americans interpret this legislation. So we find the histrionics of OP and that Canadian guy to be pathetic.

 

[Baylor]

Or it could be that at this point in time the U.S. is the laughing stock of the Western World for good reason.

Been hearing this for decades. Meanwhile Justin Trudeau is prancing around mosques in rainbow socks.