Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 92 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15242239
ingliz wrote:@Drlee

How do you define "at virtually no risk"?

For people taking the pill, typical use means the chance of pregnancy is 9% in a given year.


:eh:


Source?

You can forget the Planned Parenthood number. This figure of yours assumes that people will inevitably use the pill ineffectively. When used properly the pill is around 99.7% effective. People "forgetting" to take the pill or taking it at random is the overwhelming cause of the loss of effectiveness about which you are concerned.

So in effect you are pointing out that 9% of women are either deliberately or negligently taking care of their health while remaining sexually active. These women could and should be counseled to use a back up method of birth control All women should be advised to do this or avoid sex when they are not certain they are on schedule with their method.

Abortion is just about the worst form of birth control imaginable. It is a really bad substitute for responsible behavior and good patient education. I note that you are a man and have access to 100% effective birth control methods. If you are personally concerned and/or believe that men should in any way be held responsible for unwanted pregnancies you could avail yourself of them or advocate them for all men who may irresponsibly get a woman pregnant.

But none of this matters really. If someone has a beef about birth control they should take that up with their elected state legislatures. Birth control effectiveness is irrelevant to this discussion. Completely off topic.
#15242240
wat0n wrote:Dobbs does not allow states to ban abortion to save maternal life. That is named explicitly as a state interest that is subject to the usual constitutional scrutiny (rational basis), so a state law so broad as to ban abortion when it may be necessary to save maternal life would be unconstitutional.

This is no different from Roe, which also did not allow states to ban abortions to save maternal life, even if the fetus was already viable ("(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.")


Regardless of what the exact law says, this is still going to lead to more dead pregnant people.

And there are people passing laws that ban abortion even when the health or life of the pregnant person is at risk:


    Idaho’s Republican Party on Saturday adopted language to their platform that supports the criminalization of abortion in all cases, rejecting an amendment that would have supported allowing a person to get an abortion to save their life.
    Delegates at the state’s GOP convention in Twin Falls approved changes to the party’s platform that went further than existing language classifying abortion as murder from the point of conception. The new language backs criminalization of all abortions in Idaho, according to the Idaho Capitol Sun.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... mans-life/
#15242246
The SCOTUS can simply decide that any law banning abortion is constitutional.

They have already ignored their own writings on this subject. What is one more?
#15242279
    Roe overturned: See where Michigan governor, attorney general candidates stand

    ….

    Matthew DePerno

    DePerno said he would enforce the 1931 ban if Roe is overturned. During a recent forum, he called the 1972 ruling that made abortion legal nationwide “complete and total nonsense”

    He opposes exceptions to a ban, which can include an abortion to save the mother’s life or in cases of pregnancies caused by rape or incest. In May, he questioned whether there were instances in which a mother's life would be in danger from a viable pregnancy.

    “Real conservatives… understand that life begins at conception,” he has said.

    On Friday, he said he was "thrilled" Roe is overturned.

    "It is deeply troubling that Dana Nessel pledged to not enforce the opinion of the Supreme Court even before their announcement this morning," he said in a statement. "We cannot have an attorney general who believes she is better than the Supreme Court and the law."

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-gover ... ates-stand
#15242281
[usermention=26516]@wat0n

Pants is correct when he says, "The SCOTUS can simply decide that any law banning abortion is constitutional.

They have already ignored their own writings on this subject. What is one more?"

But he is incorrect in his reasoning and his emotional claim that they have "ignored their own writings" is irrelevant and off topic for this thread.

The SCOTUS has, in effect, ruled that it cannot decide whether a state law is constitutional. It has already ruled that it has no jurisdiction in this regard . That is why this ruling is so insidious. It severely limits the conditions under which a person challenging an abortion law may seek redress. The court would likely answer to a health of the mother tack, "we do not have a constitutional jurisdiction to decide this case"; overrule whatever the lower court said, on such grounds and let it go back to the states".


[/usermention]
Pants-of-dog wrote:
    Roe overturned: See where Michigan governor, attorney general candidates stand
    ….

    Matthew DePerno

    DePerno said he would enforce the 1931 ban if Roe is overturned. During a recent forum, he called the 1972 ruling that made abortion legal nationwide “complete and total nonsense”

    He opposes exceptions to a ban, which can include an abortion to save the mother’s life or in cases of pregnancies caused by rape or incest. In May, he questioned whether there were instances in which a mother's life would be in danger from a viable pregnancy.

    “Real conservatives… understand that life begins at conception,” he has said.

    On Friday, he said he was "thrilled" Roe is overturned.

    "It is deeply troubling that Dana Nessel pledged to not enforce the opinion of the Supreme Court even before their announcement this morning," he said in a statement. "We cannot have an attorney general who believes she is better than the Supreme Court and the law."

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-gover ... ates-stand


That's nice. I am sure that he has polling numbers to show that in Michigan this will garner him votes. That is, after all, what representative democracy is all about. But again to PODs appeal to emotion, the solution remains.....This guy is an elected state official. To the people who disagree with him.....the ball is in your court. Go get him at the polls or in the state courts. I took a quick look at the Michigan constitution and saw no grounds to bring suit regarding abortion laws but I am no lawyer.
#15242311
Pants-of-dog wrote:There is not even a clear legal or medical understanding of what is meant by "the health of the mother".


Thank you for sharing yet another reason why discussing this red herring is irrelevant to this thread.
#15242313
Feel free to ignore my posts.

It does not change the fact that the USA has no clear guidelines on what is meant by the life and/or the health of the pregnant person.

This legal and medical ambiguity can leave doctors and other medical professionals legally liable if they treat the pregnant person too early or before the medical problem becomes an emergency.
#15242315
Thank god there's the vagueness doctrine.

Even in this case, they have recourse. But honestly, I've never heard of any state charging a doctor under those circumstances. If it's truly vague, then expert witnesses will fail to agree and the beyond reasonable doubt standard won't be met.
Last edited by wat0n on 09 Aug 2022 09:27, edited 1 time in total.
#15242319
    Indiana Investigates Doctor Who Helped 10-Year-Old Rape Victim Obtain Abortion — Even Though It’s Still Legal There

    Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) has launched an investigation into the physician who helped a 10-year-old rape victim get an abortion after she was denied one under Ohio’s abortion ban, using Indiana’s reporting laws to go after the doctor because abortion itself is still legal in the state.

    KEY FACTS

    Rokita told Fox News host Jesse Watters the state was “gathering the evidence as we speak” into Dr. Caitlin Bernard and sent a letter on Wednesday to Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb (R), which asks state agencies to send his office information about whether Bernard had reported the child’s abortion and rape.

    The 10-year-old girl, whom the Indianapolis Star reported was six weeks and three days pregnant when denied an abortion in Ohio, ultimately underwent a medication abortion in Indiana on June 30, the Columbus Dispatch reports.

    Abortion is legal in Indiana up to 22 weeks into a pregnancy, but banned in Ohio after six weeks with no exceptions for rape or incest.

    Rokita cited an Indiana law stating physicians are required to report any abortions performed—whether through surgical or medication abortion—for patients under age 16 to the state health department and child services agency within three days after the abortion took place.

    Rokita also cited separate mandatory reporting requirements for physicians and other individuals to report child abuse, such as the girl’s rape.

    According to police testimony cited by the Dispatch, the rape was reported to child services in Ohio, which is how police learned of the crime, and public records show Bernard did report the abortion.

    …(article continues)
#15242322
Pants-of-dog wrote:
    Indiana Investigates Doctor Who Helped 10-Year-Old Rape Victim Obtain Abortion — Even Though It’s Still Legal There

    Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) has launched an investigation into the physician who helped a 10-year-old rape victim get an abortion after she was denied one under Ohio’s abortion ban, using Indiana’s reporting laws to go after the doctor because abortion itself is still legal in the state.

    KEY FACTS

    Rokita told Fox News host Jesse Watters the state was “gathering the evidence as we speak” into Dr. Caitlin Bernard and sent a letter on Wednesday to Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb (R), which asks state agencies to send his office information about whether Bernard had reported the child’s abortion and rape.

    The 10-year-old girl, whom the Indianapolis Star reported was six weeks and three days pregnant when denied an abortion in Ohio, ultimately underwent a medication abortion in Indiana on June 30, the Columbus Dispatch reports.

    Abortion is legal in Indiana up to 22 weeks into a pregnancy, but banned in Ohio after six weeks with no exceptions for rape or incest.

    Rokita cited an Indiana law stating physicians are required to report any abortions performed—whether through surgical or medication abortion—for patients under age 16 to the state health department and child services agency within three days after the abortion took place.

    Rokita also cited separate mandatory reporting requirements for physicians and other individuals to report child abuse, such as the girl’s rape.

    According to police testimony cited by the Dispatch, the rape was reported to child services in Ohio, which is how police learned of the crime, and public records show Bernard did report the abortion.

    …(article continues)


Did you actually read the off topic post above? Seriously. Did you? You do realize that this has absolutely nothing to do with abortion? It has to do with reporting child abuse? The title of the piece is designed to give a false narrative. The last line shows that there was no issue. Really POD. You need to stop being so emotional and start paying attention. And also please stop trying to derail this thread by going off topic. Back when the site had moderators they probably would have stopped you from doing this.

Then. Off topic as usual, you posted this nonsense:

It does not change the fact that the USA has no clear guidelines on what is meant by the life and/or the health of the pregnant person.

This legal and medical ambiguity can leave doctors and other medical professionals legally liable if they treat the pregnant person too early or before the medical problem becomes an emergency.
You are articulating an issue that may be difficult for the average American to understand but not hard at all for doctors to understand.

Smart doctors, in states which prohibit or severely limit abortions will just stop doing them. And if they feel that they may be threatened by criminal action it is the wise decision for them to do. The remedy for this does not lie with educating doctors or trying to figure out what the term "health" means. The remedy is to change the law. And I have told you over and over again just how to do it.

So POD. What is your next red herring?
#15242327
The article showing how Republicans are targeting doctors who are legally providing abortions shows how the Republicans are using this as political ammunition and not because they actually care about the problems caused by banning abortion.

It also shows that the state is willing to go after doctors for even the smallest of reasons. To assume that this would exclude the life and health exception seems illogical.

Finally, the amicus brief by the ACOG has already discussed this ambiguity problem. NPR did a pretty good article about it. There was also discussion about this ambiguity issue in the recent testimony to the state of Indiana when they were proposing one of these near total bans on abortion.
#15242334
Pants-of-dog wrote:The article showing how Republicans are targeting doctors who are legally providing abortions shows how the Republicans are using this as political ammunition and not because they actually care about the problems caused by banning abortion.

It also shows that the state is willing to go after doctors for even the smallest of reasons. To assume that this would exclude the life and health exception seems illogical.

Finally, the amicus brief by the ACOG has already discussed this ambiguity problem. NPR did a pretty good article about it. There was also discussion about this ambiguity issue in the recent testimony to the state of Indiana when they were proposing one of these near total bans on abortion.


And down and down we go. Into the rabbit hole.

At least you are beginning to come around. You may yet "get it". You are starting to talk about this as a political problem. It is. Entirely. The ACOG brief was a waste of time and off topic. The issue of abortion in American is solely a political issue with political solutions. Full stop.
#15242343
@Drlee If Roe V Wade wasn't an issue and did nothing, then why is this crap happening after the overturning? Coincidence? :?:
#15242453
Godstud wrote:@Drlee If Roe V Wade wasn't an issue and did nothing, then why is this crap happening after the overturning? Coincidence? :?:


That's not what I said. I never said it did nothing. I wish it had not been overturned.

What I have said, to put it succinctly, is that Roe V. Wade was terrible law. It was a mish mash of legislation from the bench. For example. When faced with the opportunity to rule on whether or not a woman has the right to an abortion it said no. Or more exactly, "sometimes". If their doctor agrees.

The new decision, as inconvenient as it may be to some people, certainly makes legal sense. What the SCOTUS did was simply say, "we will not legislated from the bench". Then. Since we won't, and since there is no federal statutory or constitutional law on the books governing abortion, the decision on how it should be handled goes to the states and to the people. And how do the people control national policy? Not by voting in national elections. There are no national elections. The people control lawmaking by voting in state elections.

So all of this extraneous bullshit about when life begins, what the dangers for women are, and how well birth control works will only be germane when it is applied to the voters in a local election.

FWIW I agree with SCOTUS that there is no right to an abortion articulated in the constitution. Any honest person would have to admit that the founders would have NEVER articulated such a right for women. For God's sake, they did not even allow women to vote. In colonial America, a woman becoming pregnant outside of wedlock would have been lucky to escape with her life. Adultery is still a felony in some states and a crime in many. The argument that the founders would have approved of or even sanctioned abortion is absurd. And Godstud, you know that.

The decision as to whether abortion should be legal is right where it ought to be. With the states. And the people.
#15242460
Drlee wrote: When faced with the opportunity to rule on whether or not a woman has the right to an abortion it said no. Or more exactly, "sometimes". If their doctor agrees.
I agree it was far less than perfect, but it was better than absolutely nothing, as is evidenced by what is happening now.

Drlee wrote:The decision as to whether abortion should be legal is right where it ought to be. With the states. And the people.
50% of all people are stupid. The decision on whether it was legal or not varies wildly according to politics/ideology and region.

Federally, in the USA, abortion should be legalized, but then at the state level than can work out the details of up until how many weeks it is legal(within reason). They do this in Canada. It works.
#15242474
50% of all people are stupid. The decision on whether it was legal or not varies wildly according to politics/ideology and region.


You are correct. The effect of this decision relies on the politics/ideology and region. That is why the court decided, many say correctly, to allow the people affected to make the decision and put it back to the states.


Federally, in the USA, abortion should be legalized, but then at the state level than can work out the details of up until how many weeks it is legal(within reason). They do this in Canada. It works.


That is what the court did with Roe V. Wade. It allowed the state to decide "how many weeks" only requiring that the states make abortion available in early pregnancy. Very much like Canada. In that regard the only thing that has changed IN SOME PLACES, is the early term piece.

Should we have a "one size fits all" rule? Some say yes. I say no. Not unless this national standard derives from a constitutional amendment giving equal rights to women.

In the meantime we have the decision residing in the states where an individual vote can still matter. That's not to bad.
  • 1
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93

Follow-up -- you have no objection to the theory /[…]

...like watching a 10 year old... Yes, young kid[…]

There are more missing documents, and that raises […]