[RD] Abortion, once again

It's not like they xan change the constitution.

Alot of Americans claim its an infringement of their constitutional rights.

There's no mention of it in said constitution which means it's a congress/Supreme Court ruling.

Pointed this put in lead up to oe vs Wade being overturned.
 
This is a good attitude to have in general and it may even be true in a cosmic sense for abortion rights. However it does not really address the issue of this specific vote. West Virginia is about the reddest state in the country; probably the biggest reason Manchin threw in the towel for Senate in 2024 is that his statewide approval ratings tanked absolutely after he voted for the watered-down crap that was the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. He was seen by the West Virginia voters as having capitulated to the radical left Democrats.

In light of this, what pressure could the Democrats possibly apply? Any public measure they would take that would signal displeasure with Manchin would probably just boost his approvals and in-state fundraising.
Obviously there is more kinds of pressure than public. It comes down to a lot of wheeling and dealing out of view and horse trading. Almost none of it is clean or done without a consideration for calculated interest. That is the angle you take, but a high profile “almost” is just as good for keeping suckers on the hook for the next election anyway.
 
Obviously there is more kinds of pressure than public. It comes down to a lot of wheeling and dealing out of view and horse trading. Almost none of it is clean or done without a consideration for calculated interest. That is the angle you take, but a high profile “almost” is just as good for keeping suckers on the hook for the next election anyway.

Well I'd love if Biden got on the phone with him and threatened to burn his house down with his kids inside if he didn't vote yes on the thing, but that's not realistic.
 
Yes, and I have to say I consider that a mark against him.
 
All Manchin had to do was switch parties and give senate control to McConnell.
 
The U.S. has gone insane - foreigners

Those of us from the middle of the country have been warning about this for many decades.

But why listen to anyone from flyover? Trump can’t win. It’s literally impossible.

Another happy screw you to the Democrats for doing nothing to lock this down federally, by the way. And they easily could for all the excuses you all want to make for them but it’s just not a big priority for them. Most democrats live in democrat states. Who cares about Texan women? They’re probably racist anyway. This is literally how our current liberal tendency considers the issue.
I punched like on this extra hard.

Over 20 weeks. But what's that, anyways. "Not me, don't care."

Edit: I should specify - Care enough to say. Not care enough to do.
 
Last edited:

Texas Supreme Court Rules Against Woman Who Sought Court-Approved Abortion​

Hours before the ruling, a group representing the woman, whose fetus received a fatal diagnosis, said she was leaving Texas for an abortion.

The Texas Supreme Court on Monday overturned a lower court order allowing an abortion for a pregnant woman whose fetus was diagnosed with a fatal condition, hours after her lawyers said she had decided to leave Texas for the procedure in the face of the state’s abortion bans.

The court ruled that the lower court made a mistake in ruling that the woman, Kate Cox, who is more than 20 weeks pregnant, was entitled to a medical exception.
In its seven-page ruling, the Supreme Court found that Ms. Cox’s doctor, Damla Karsan, “asked a court to pre-authorize the abortion yet she could not, or at least did not, attest to the court that Ms. Cox’s condition poses the risks the exception requires.” Texas’ overlapping bans allow for abortions only when a pregnancy seriously threatens the health or life of the woman.
“These laws reflect the policy choice that the Legislature has made, and the courts must respect that choice,” the court wrote.

The ruling, which applied only to Ms. Cox’s current pregnancy, suggested that the court would not be open to readings of the law that would expand the medical exception in Texas beyond all but the most serious cases. The fact that Ms. Cox decided to leave the state rather than wait for a ruling underscored the difficulty of seeking court permission for an abortion in the midst of a pregnancy.

More here:

This seems to be a direct reaction to the announcement that the woman was leaving the state. Once she had the abortion, their decision would have been moot because there would have been no abortion to deny. So they had to rush this ruling out to get it on the books while there was still a controversy to adjudicate.
 

US Supreme Court to consider abortion pill case​

The US Supreme Court announced it will consider a case that could limit access to a key abortion drug.

It is the most significant reproductive rights case in the US since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, which guaranteed women a right to an abortion.

A lower court ruling restricted access to mifepristone over safety concerns raised by anti-abortion groups.

It has been legal in the US for over 20 years and is used in most abortions.

The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, will hear oral arguments early next year.

The battle over mifepristone is the newest frontier in the abortion debate, which has raged since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in a June 2022 decision.

Roe v Wade was a landmark 1973 ruling that guaranteed women across the country the right to an abortion up until the point of foetal viability, which is about 24 weeks.


Since that case was overturned a little over a year ago, a dozen states now ban or seriously restrict abortion. That has made abortion pills, which can be obtained via mail and taken at home, a focus for both abortion advocates and opponents.

Mifepristone is part of a two-pill regimen that is commonly used to end pregnancies that are still in their early weeks.

Decades of use and research has found that the combination is safe to use. Abortion pills are used in about half of abortions in the US. They are also commonly used in treating miscarriages.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first approved mifepristone in 2000, and decisions in 2016 and 2021 increased access to mifepristone by allowing them to be sent by mail.

Access to the drug was challenged by a group of anti-abortion doctors and activists known as the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. They brought a case in Amarillo, Texas that claimed the Food and Drug Administration did not properly consider safety concerns when it lifted some restrictions and approved mifepristone for use.

US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who has shared anti-abortion views publicly, ruled in their favour in April and blocked the FDA's approval.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overruled part of Judge Kacsmaryk's decision, but allowed his restrictions on the FDA's expansions of mifepristone access to stand.

The Biden administration and the manufacturer of mifepristone, Danco, have asked the US Supreme Court to reconsider the lower court's rulings.

"The loss of access to mifepristone would be damaging for women and healthcare providers around the Nation," the Justice Department wrote in its petition.

In its own filing, Danco questioned whether the lower courts had the authority to negate a federal agency's decision, and said the case raised serious constitutional questions of whether judges could "overrule agency decisions that they dislike".

Mifepristone has remained available in states where abortion is legal while the court cases play out.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67707317
 
In countries with parliamentary systems where parties are based on a dues-paying mass membership and there is party discipline, you would be right, but the US parties are more like brands than like coherent political organizations.
It confuses the hell out of me that your country bothers with political parties if everyone can just vote the way they want to, anyway.

Granted, we do have some free votes here, which means that it's not a whipped vote. There will not be any sanctions for voting against party policy.

But abortion isn't one of those issues. When Justin Trudeau became the Liberal leader, he made it a condition of being a party candidate that all Liberal MPs must, when a bill comes up that could impact women's reproductive rights, vote on the side that has the least negative impact on those rights. So if you're anti-choice, don't even think of running for the Liberal Party if you can't set that aside and vote to support women's reproductive rights.

Now if they could only make it clear to some of the provinces that restricting the availability of abortions puts them in contravention of the Canada Health Act (equal access to all basic services no matter where you live in the country).
 
It confuses the hell out of me that your country bothers with political parties if everyone can just vote the way they want to, anyway.

Again, think of them as like brands that help voters kinda of have a mental shortcut to know what a politician stands for, broadly, without having to interrogate all their positions on every issue.
 
Or think of them like large political organizations who don’t really care if they’re useful to society in general but have a vested interest - literally - in controlling elections and managing the flow of members to congress. You can think of them each as a one party dictatorship whose main source of legitimacy is “we ain’t the other guys.”
 
Or think of them like large political organizations who don’t really care if they’re useful to society in general but have a vested interest - literally - in controlling elections and managing the flow of members to congress. You can think of them each as a one party dictatorship whose main source of legitimacy is “we ain’t the other guys.”

I mean, I guess, kinda? but their power resides in the fact that most of the people who vote identify with one or the other major party. You can argue this is due to mystification and I think that's true to an extent but only to an extent.

I know you're trying to make out that it's the same as in China or Iran or other authoritarian countries, and the point is well-taken that the ruling class, through ideological hegemony (and sometimes the CIA), enforces the bounds of Acceptable, Serious candidates, makes democracy a ritual where we pick the brand that will "represent" us rather than a serious way to determine the policy that the federal government will enact.
 
No, their power lasts in the fact they gerrymander districts or tool out the system so they always win a significant stake of districts, and they fight their only major rival over everything that falls in between. Beliefs, insofar as they matter here, are all received, structured, and manufactured so as to make an individual copacetic with the political power above them. Truthfully there is not much difference in any given democrat or Republican except in where they come from; mostly they observe the same principles and believe in the same things. But because of their party, and what they believe is a personal stake in the success of that party based on their own moral aptitude, they gain a position or opinion that might be completely intractable or contradictory and they justify it based on political arcana and rhetoric.

In my opinion anyway, I guess we could all be unique balls of light and hope but barf on that.
 
In my opinion anyway, I guess we could all be unique balls of light and hope but barf on that.

Only hope can give rise to the emotion we call despair. But it is nearly impossible for a man to try to live without hope, so I guess that leaves Man no choice but to walk around with despair as his companion.
 
Truthfully there is not much difference in any given democrat or Republican except in where they come from
Keep kicking them in the balls of light like that, and just they may barf on you!
 
We all could do with a light barfing now and then!
 
You know that moment where you know you've just injured yourself, but it doesn't hurt yet? And you're trying to figure out if it's got to be a hassle or not, then the nausea kicks in before the pain?

Teachable moments, lol.
 
Ohio grand jury to decide whether to charge woman who miscarried for ‘abuse of a corpse’

A grand jury is set to decide whether an Ohio woman who miscarried a nonviable fetus should face criminal consequences.

Brittany Watts, who was reportedly turned into the police after her September miscarriage, has been charged with the fifth-degree felony of “abuse of a corpse” in Trumbull county, Ohio. Her case has been held up as evidence of how easily pregnant people can find themselves in law enforcement’s crosshairs – especially since the overturning of Roe v Wade and amid tightening abortion restrictions in the US.

If convicted, Watts could spend up to a year behind bars.

In September, Watts showed up at an Ohio hospital with signs that her water had broken prematurely, according to CNN. That condition can make it impossible for a pregnancy to continue and, if left untreated, pregnant people in that condition can slip into deadly sepsis – which has happened in other states post-Roe.

Watts was 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy, CNN reported. At the time, Ohio law banned abortion past 22 weeks of pregnancy. That law has since changed: thanks to a November referendum, Ohio now permits the procedure until viability, a benchmark that generally occurs at about 24 weeks of pregnancy. Still, the Washington Post reported that staffers at the hospital spent hours debating how to proceed with Watts’s case.

Watts left the hospital against medical advice because, she told the doctor, she could “better process what was happening to her at home”, according to the Post. She returned the next day, but left again.

Watts ended up miscarrying the fetus at home, into the toilet, which became clogged with blood, tissue and stool, according to the Washington Post. Watts thought that she removed the mass clogging the toilet and “placed it outdoors”, in the words of the outlet.

Afterward, she went to the hospital – where a nurse reported her to the police, Watts told the Washington Post.

In situations where a person is criminalized over their pregnancy, medical professionals are often responsible for instigating the case: one in three cases are initiated by a medical professional, according to an analysis of nearly 1,400 such cases by Pregnancy Justice.

The “abuse of a corpse” charge turns on the question of whether someone has treated a corpse in a way that would “outrage reasonable community sensibilities”, according to the text of the law. Watts’s attorney, Traci Timko, told CNN in an email that Ohio law does not require miscarrying women to bury or cremate fetal remains.

“Women miscarry into toilets every day,” she added. (Timko did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the Guardian.)

Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights, a group that helped lead the charge to protect abortion access in Ohio, agreed in an open letter to a Trumbull county prosecutor.

“By seeking to indict her, you are clearly implying that anyone who miscarries at any point in pregnancy in our state must retrieve the fetal tissue whether they are at home, at work, at school, at a restaurant or other public place and preserve it until the tissue can be disposed of properly even though Ohio law does not define what a proper disposal method would be nor require that this non-existent method be used,” the group wrote. “We have no doubt that women facing the threat of jail time and hefty fines will conceal the fact that they have miscarried and refuse to seek treatment.”

Trumbull county prosecutor Dennis Watkins said in a statement that his office has no choice but to present the case to a grand jury, the Associated Press reported.

“The county prosecutors are duty bound to follow Ohio law,” Watkins said.
 
Back
Top Bottom