[RD] Abortion, once again

sounds exactly like ny and dc courts, though of course no complaints then. concluding these are meaningfully better than each other in terms of process seems biased to me. just depends which way one is biased.
The drug in question was approved by the FDA 22 years ago after it wss run through the regular test. In addition, the drug was being used in Europe for years prior to the FDA approval. With decades of actual usage, the drug has proved both its safety and effectiveness. The plaintiffs allege the drug is dangerous.

Facts matter
 
Facts matter
you'd think so, but i've seen an interesting habit of them mattering only when convenient to court lately, with courts otherwise otherwise refusing to allow relevant facts into discussion of the case. i don't see a meaningful distinction in this practice when given a) fact is relevant to case and b) court disregards it or blocks it from being heard by jury etc.
 
you'd think so, but i've seen an interesting habit of them mattering only when convenient to court lately, with courts otherwise otherwise refusing to allow relevant facts into discussion of the case. i don't see a meaningful distinction in this practice when given a) fact is relevant to case and b) court disregards it or blocks it from being heard by jury etc.
You're talking legal evidentiary requirements, not proven factual evidence. Here, this case, proves your point in that the judge refused to take two decades of widespread usage among American women, even longer in Europe and elsewhere into account, instead relying on his own distorted, personal religious beliefs, not on the law and not the overwhelming evidence that this drug is quite safe. The judge didn't conceal the evidence from a jury.
 
You're talking legal evidentiary requirements, not proven factual evidence. Here, this case, proves your point in that the judge refused to take two decades of widespread usage among American women, even longer in Europe and elsewhere into account, instead relying on his own distorted, personal religious beliefs, not on the law and not the overwhelming evidence that this drug is quite safe. The judge didn't conceal the evidence from a jury.
i'm not okay with what the courts did here either.

though i think an argument against the drug in question dates back to how it was originally allowed for use (emergency approval) and how some non-religious based objections to it were disregarded at the time? i'm not sure that's the argument provided to the courts though. the only legit arguments against the drug at this point would be if it has complications/problems beyond what's been documented/advertised. like if company claims it's safe/effective, but it's actually less safe than surgical abortion or something. given multiple decades of use, it shouldn't be hard to bring evidence to this discussion and just answer that question though. at least, for non-corrupt courts.
 

Democratic, Republican state leaders in glaring contrast on abortion pills, reproductive rights​

Legal questions swirl around supply of drug mifepristone, interstate travel for abortions

A growing number of states led by Democratic governors are stockpiling doses of drugs used in medication abortions, amid fears that a court ruling last week could restrict access to the most commonly used method of abortion in the U.S.

The moves are more generally a reflection of the shifts at state level that are resulting after last year's Dobbs v. Jackson ruling overturned the epochal 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which established the right to abortion. The shifts often illustrate how Democratic- and Republican-led states are moving further apart with respect to reproductive health.

Massachusetts said Monday it has purchased enough doses of the drug mifepristone — one of two drugs used in combination to end pregnancies — to last for more than a year.

California has secured an emergency stockpile of up to two million pills of misoprostol, the other drug used in abortion medication, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has announced, while Washington's Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee announced last week that the state purchased 30,000 doses of the generic version of mifepristone, enough to last the state's residents three years.

The actions come as U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a federal judge in Texas appointed by former president Donald Trump, overruled decades of scientific approval Friday and put on hold federal approval of mifepristone.

Democratic Gov. Maura Healey said the Kacsmaryk ruling threatens access to the medication even in states supportive of abortion rights like hers, Massachusetts.

"It harms patients, undermines medical expertise, and takes away freedom. It's an attempt to punish, to shame, to marginalize women. It's unnecessary," Healey said.

Interstate travel bans called 'uncharted territory'​

The Biden administration on Monday appealed the Kacsmaryk decision, saying it would thwart the U.S. Food and Drug administration's scientific judgment and "severely harm women."

The court ruling has even raised eyebrows among some Republicans in Congress.

"I agree with ignoring it at this point… this thing should just be thrown out, quite frankly," South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace said Monday in a CNN interview.

But at the state level, many Republican officials are going even further in restricting previously-held reproductive rights.

Idaho is one of those states, one of 13 in total banning abortion at all stages of pregnancy since last year. Legal limits on abortion-related travel are the focus of a new law, with Idaho Gov. Brad Little signing a bill that makes it illegal for an adult to help a minor get an abortion without parental consent.

The new "abortion trafficking" law signed on April 5 is the first of its kind in the U.S. It makes it illegal to either obtain abortion pills for a minor or to help them leave the state for an abortion without their parents' knowledge and consent. Anyone convicted will face two to five years in prison and could also be sued by the minor's parent or guardian.

There is no legal precedent giving good guidance about whether states can influence their residents getting abortions outside their borders.

"If red states pass laws saying, 'We can go after people for X, Y and Z,' and blue states say, 'You can't,' we're in uncharted territory," said Mary Ziegler, a legal historian at the University of California, Davis School of Law.

The scenario is somewhat analogous to the situation before the nation's top court recognized a right to same-sex marriage in 2015. Some states did not recognize marriages that were legal elsewhere, and all the protections that go with them. The federal ruling largely resolved those legal conflicts.

Idaho's neighbour pushes back on new law​

Andrea Miller, president of the National Institute for Reproductive Health, which supports abortion rights, said the validity of interstate laws is unclear.

"The hope would be this would be seen as an extreme overreach," she said, "but one would have thought that overturning Roe v. Wade would have been an extreme overreach,too."

Inslee, from neighbouring Washington, in a letter to Little, expressed his objections to a bill he said had "unacceptable consequences."

"As we did during COVID, we will care for your residents in a manner consistent with their health care needs as determined by trained medical professionals, not politicians," Inslee wrote.

Texas took a step toward state-border restrictions in a 2021 law that allows civil lawsuits against a person who "aids or abets the performance or inducement of abortion." The former husband of a Galveston-area woman who terminated a pregnancy last year with medication sued three women who helped her obtain pills, claiming wrongful death. The lawsuit says the woman terminated the pregnancy in July 2022 and the couple divorced in February.

Tennessee's Republican-dominated legislature last week approved a measure that would prohibit cities and counties from using their funds to help someone obtain an abortion outside the state — including banning coverage of out-of-state abortions under government employee health insurance plans.

In his concurring opinion in last year's ruling overturning Roe, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh contemplated whether states could restrict their residents from getting abortions in other states

"In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel," Kavanaugh wrote.

'Unconscionable': Iowa change for victims slammed​

Meanwhile, Iowa said last week it has paused its practice of paying for emergency contraception — and in rare cases, abortions — for victims of sexual assault.

Federal regulations and state law require Iowa to pay many of the expenses for sexual assault victims who seek medical help, such as the costs of forensic exams and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. Iowa's victim compensation fund until recently also paid for Plan B, the so-called morning after pill, as well as other treatments to prevent pregnancy.

"As a part of her top-down, bottom-up audit of victim assistance, Attorney General [Brenna] Bird is carefully evaluating whether this is an appropriate use of public funds," an Iowa government spokesperson said in a statement.

The Iowa chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union called for a reversal, characterizing the decision as "beyond cruel" and "unconscionable."

"Being sexually assaulted is traumatic for survivors and the State of Iowa simply must do the right thing by them," the ACLU said. "This includes helping victims put their lives back together and assist them on the road to recovery. Instead, this decision penalizes and re-victimizes them."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-states-abortion-law-disparities-1.6806541
 
There is no legal precedent giving good guidance about whether states can influence their residents getting abortions outside their borders.
actually, there is, in contrast to what's being said here.

the longstanding precedent is that they can't, and that's the only conclusion that's functional. there is no way a state's law can supersede law in a different state with the result still being a functioning country. it's the equivalent of a state that outlaws pot going after people who smoke out of state in places where it's legal to do so.

idaho isn't the federal government. it doesn't have jurisdiction in other states and doesn't make laws for other states. it has no more legal authority to go after people who take any pill of any kind in other states than it has to declare war on algeria. to behave otherwise would be to break precedent that has been in place since the country was founded (and likely before).

The scenario is somewhat analogous to the situation before the nation's top court recognized a right to same-sex marriage in 2015.
it isn't though. neither idaho nor any other state has an analogous position to "top court". its laws are not federal laws, and can't be. this is meme stuff and every state trying it looks really bad (and undermines their own credibility when asserting states rights otherwise). state rights doesn't just mean your own state's rights.

the iowa conduct, while still unethical, is a bit more grey legally. but states dictating the laws of other states and effectively doing selective travel bans? lolno.
 
I'd like to see exactly how "abortion trafficking" (lol) enforcement works. Maybe someone can tell me.
Presumably Idaho authorities are going to dig through someone's trash and find a receipt for an abortion on another state or something. "Aah! caught you!"

I mean it's not like people would ever hide the reasons why they go out of state. That is something that totally never happens.
 
It makes it illegal to either obtain abortion pills for a minor or to help them leave the state for an abortion without their parents' knowledge and consent.
While I am solidly pro-choice, I can't really find a logical reason to oppose this part. Take abortion out of the equation for a second: shouldn't it be illegal to provide a minor prescription drugs or transport a minor across state lines without their parents' knowledge & consent? I would have thought that wasn't allowed regardless of the reason.
 
While I am solidly pro-choice, I can't really find a logical reason to oppose this part. Take abortion out of the equation for a second: shouldn't it be illegal to provide a minor prescription drugs or transport a minor across state lines without their parents' knowledge & consent? I would have thought that wasn't allowed regardless of the reason.
yes, even though states can't make laws for other states, trafficking is still a crime. there are ethical reasons completely unrelated to abortion whereby it's not a good idea to condone random adults taking minors across state borders against parent wishes.

If parents are irresponsible enough to let their minor daughter get pregnant, why should they have a say?
what a callous statement
 
how is aiding a minor who wants to get an abortion considered "trafficking"? I mean it is either legal in the state in which it occurs or it isn't, and the person wants to have it or they don't; being illegal in a person's home/resident state is irrelevant. I'm not a particular fan of abortion either but I'm not undestanding the Idaho law's logic here.
 
While I am solidly pro-choice, I can't really find a logical reason to oppose this part. Take abortion out of the equation for a second: shouldn't it be illegal to provide a minor prescription drugs or transport a minor across state lines without their parents' knowledge & consent? I would have thought that wasn't allowed regardless of the reason.

No, it shouldn't. I take a very dim view of parental rights absolutists; your child is another human with rights, not your property.
 
how is aiding a minor who wants to get an abortion considered "trafficking"? I mean it is either legal in the state in which it occurs or it isn't, and the person wants to have it or they don't; being illegal in a person's home/resident state is irrelevant. I'm not a particular fan of abortion either but I'm not undestanding the Idaho law's logic here.
by default, the act of an adult taking a minor long distances away from parents without their knowledge or consent is questionable. like if a 50 year old dude picked up a 15 year old and drove her 300 miles somewhere, this would *generally* be a problem. even if they just did something otherwise completely legal like participate in a smash brother's tournament, go hunting/skiing, etc...doing this w/o parent knowledge leads to problems (and risks).

these dynamics don't change if you switch out "skiing" with "abortion". the problem here isn't abortion, just like the problem isn't whether the child wanted to go skiing. admittedly, i haven't checked what laws say precisely on this activity. at some point, it becomes legally fine for sure (age 18+). and most people would probably consider taking someone 10 years or younger to go skiing in above example even more weird. i'm not sure where laws draw the line, but i'm sure you can at least see the potential from some problems with doing this?

I'm not a particular fan of abortion either but I'm not undestanding the Idaho law's logic here.
i'm not at all in agreement with idaho's nonsense wrt abortion/new laws.

Sometimes the truth is callous.
sometimes what you believe is true is not.

there are numerous circumstances that could lead to situation described, and their reflection on parents' behavior varies greatly. better be careful where you "point" those vehicles when driving other peoples' kids between states though! wouldn't want to add an extra charge to random vehicular assault pointing rulings haha!
 
wouldn't want to add an extra charge to random vehicular assault pointing rulings haha!
Haha, remember when you said every thread is its own thing and stuff shouldn't be brought over?

A long while back, but I remember. Good times. I guess that other thread really is getting to ya.

Your entire argument is an appeal to an extreme. But you only consider one extreme, and not what is currently happening (or any other extreme). It's "but what is a child is taken" as supposed to "what if a child is forced to go through something they shouldn't have to".

Given your stated opposition to said ruling, I can't think of good reason why you'd try and split that hair in this kind of thread. But then again the dig at JollyRoger shows the motivation here.
 
No, it shouldn't. I take a very dim view of parental rights absolutists; your child is another human with rights, not your property.
I guess here's how I view it, using more innocuous examples:
1) Should I be able to give someone else's minor child Sleeping Pills (or Nyquil I guess, if you prefer) without their parents' knowledge/consent (I don't mean without the minor's knowledge/consent, meaning provide it to them)? Those are both OTC & yet I feel like that shouldn't be allowed.
2) Should I be able to take someone else's minor child out of state to go shopping at a mall/store (or, heck, even an in-state mall/store) without their parents' knowledge/consent?

This seems more like a (taking abortion out of it) rule where a random person shouldn't be able to do certain things to/for a minor child without the parents' knowledge (much less consent). Not advocating for a super-harsh penalty or anything, fwiw.
 
Back
Top Bottom