Roe vs Wade overturned

Opinion piece, NYT:
Is Society Finally Ready for Male Birth Control?
July 11, 2022

Over 40 percent of the six million annual pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, according to the latest data available, and about one in five pregnancies ends in abortion. With the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, and the resulting loss of access to safe abortion care for millions of Americans, it is more critical than ever to prevent unplanned pregnancies. The use of an effective method of contraception is the best way to do so.

As researchers developing male hormonal contraception, we believe that to reduce unplanned pregnancy and the need for abortion, men need to become more engaged in contraception. Men are involved in 100 percent of unintended pregnancies, and most men remain fertile for much of their lives.
Male contraceptives have been in use for hundreds of years. Condoms made from animal intestines were used in Renaissance Europe. Condoms are a useful tool for preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, despite having significant failure and discontinuation rates over time. Many men and women simply don’t like them. Vasectomies have long been performed in the United States, but they are not always reversible and are therefore appealing only to men with no interest in future fatherhood. Despite these drawbacks, condoms and vasectomy currently account for roughly 21 percent of monthly contraception use in the United States.

While numerous contraceptives for women exist, including implants, pills, intrauterine devices and vaginal rings, a substantial proportion of women do not have a method they can use safely or without significant side effects. For example, the pill may not be recommended for women with a history of blood clots or women over 35 who smoke. Many women experience side effects from contraceptives, such as abnormal bleeding, weight gain, acne and low libido. In addition, even for these imperfect options, access to contraception remains a challenge in many settings. Now that the opportunity to terminate an unplanned pregnancy will be unavailable to many, the United States needs innovative solutions to make a major impact on unplanned pregnancy rates, which have remained relatively stagnant over the past two decades, despite the introduction of more female methods. Novel male contraceptives hold that promise.

Would men use contraceptives if more choices were available? Multinational survey data suggests that 29 to 71 percent of men would use a male hormonal contraceptive. Recent market research from the Male Contraceptive Initiative indicates 82 percent of U.S. men ages 18 to 44 whose partners experienced an unplanned pregnancy in the past are interested in new methods of male contraception, with the majority saying they feel they share contraceptive responsibility with their partner. Importantly, one study found that only 2 percent of women surveyed said they would not trust their partners to use a hormonal male contraceptive. More work is needed to substantiate these survey data with real world experiences from men and to educate men about contraceptive options.

Reversible male hormonal contraception has been tested for around 50 years. We know from our and others’ research that these methods work well for most men. Various injections and implants have been tested in over 2,000 couples worldwide, together demonstrating reversibility and around 95 percent effectiveness in preventing pregnancy — rates comparable with the female pill’s and better than condoms’.

The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development and the Population Council, together with 15 centers across the globe — including sites in North and South America, Europe and Africa — are conducting a study in over 400 couples of a hormonal contraceptive gel that men apply to their shoulders once a day for 18 to 24 months. As investigators helping to conduct this trial, we know that men are interested and engaged in using these methods. Our male participants often express a desire to continue using the method for contraception after their time in the study ends, and their female partners are often disappointed to return to their previous methods.

Nonhormonal male contraceptives are less well developed but show promise in laboratory testing. A prototype “reversible vasectomy” is being tested in countries like India and the United States. It entails an injected gel that forms a plug to prevent the passage of sperm; the plug can be broken down or degrades to allow for reversal. More long term, scientists are working to develop molecules that prevent sperm swimming or maturation; however, these second-generation male contraceptives are likely more than a decade away.

As clinicians and developers, we are always asked about side effects. A minority of men testing male hormonal contraceptives experience side effects that will be familiar to some women who have used hormonal contraceptives (for example, weight gain, acne and increase or decrease in libido). Nevertheless, men say they are willing to share the burden of side effects with women, and the concept of shared risk has been proposed to reframe the risk analysis in this situation. In this paradigm, men take on the risk of side effects from contraceptive use to protect their partners from the risk of undesirable effects of their contraceptive or unintended pregnancy. With a number of states now further limiting access to safe abortion, the risks for many women of an unplanned pregnancy has risen sharply, furthering the imperative to look at shared risk by a couple when assessing potential contraceptive side effects.

Why the loss of engagement? It’s possible that the novelty of male birth control is seen as too risky for profits and that the market is underappreciated for pharmaceutical involvement. Moreover, developers suffer from a lack of regulatory guidance from the Food and Drug Administration on how effective these products must be for market introduction. Consensus
recommendations from the research community have been published suggesting metrics for evaluating novel male hormonal contraceptives and establishing effectiveness and safety levels, but whether these will be adopted by regulators is unknown. Greater advocacy is needed to push the field forward and convince funders and the pharmaceutical industry that there is a demand for this technology.

We are not developing male contraceptives to replace female contraceptives. Access to contraception and safe abortion is a fundamental human right for all people and a necessary component of public health. Many men wish to share the burden of contraception with their partners; others want reproductive autonomy. Men are ready, but their contraceptive options are sparse. Education will be important as products come to the market.

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a decision that will severely limit people’s options when an unplanned pregnancy occurs — a decision that will have a disproportionate impact on poor women — we need, more than ever, to accelerate development of male contraceptive options. Lives are at stake.
 
Most of my snark occurs here and hidden in the parts of my legal filings that I think the judge won't read.
But the court clerk or an intern at the opposition's lawyer firm might.
 
Pregnant woman given HOV ticket argues fetus is passenger, post-Roe
By Timothy Bella
Updated July 9, 2022 at 1:58 p.m. EDT

A pregnant Texas woman who was ticketed for driving in the HOV lane suggested that Roe v. Wade being overturned by the Supreme Court means that her fetus counted as a passenger, and that she should not have been cited.

Brandy Bottone was recently driving down Central Expressway in Dallas when she was stopped by a sheriff’s deputy at an HOV checkpoint to see whether there were at least two occupants per vehicle as mandated. When the sheriff looked around her car last month, she recounted to The Washington Post that he asked, “Is it just you or is someone else riding with you?”

“I said, ‘Oh, there’s two of us,’” Bottone said. “And he said, ‘Where?’”
Beat me to it. Well done Bird! :hatsoff:
 
Did the SCOTUS miss the important part of the constitution?

I have tried to reduce it to the most salient points, but the original is probably worth reading if you have time.

Conspicuously absent from the constitutional analysis in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health was any acknowledgement of Article VI of the Constitution, which provides that treaties are “the supreme law of the land.”

Two such treaties – the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) – recognise the human rights to life, privacy, and non-discrimination. Taken together, these treaties, and the rights they safeguard, require access to safe and lawful abortion services as a matter of law.

The US, moreover, has signed and ratified both instruments, which means that the ICCPR and ICERD are binding laws upon our country.

First, Article 6 of the ICCPR provides that “[e]very human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”

As guaranteed by the ICCPR, the right to life does not apply prenatally. In fact, during the ICCPR’s drafting – in which the US played a key part – the delegations specifically voted against adding language stating that the right to life began at conception. The UN Human Rights Council has held in multiple cases that the right to life does not apply from conception. On the contrary, it has emphasised the need to uphold a women’s right to life by protecting abortion access.

This interpretation of the ICCPR is supported by evidence that abortion bans do not eliminate abortions, but rather result in more unsafe abortions. Unsafe abortions increase maternal morbidity and mortality. More women will, therefore, die unnecessarily because of abortion bans – the very definition of arbitrary deprivation of life.

Second, although Dobbs rejects the notion that the Constitution provides for a right to privacy, that right is guaranteed by the ICCPR. Article 17 of the ICCPR provides that “[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation”. The UN Human Rights Committee has concluded, in varying contexts, that restrictions on abortion infringe upon this privacy right.

Third, Article 26 of the ICCPR provides that “the law shall … guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”. ICERD, in Article 5, contains similar language.

Again, the UN Human Rights Committee has issued authoritative guidance stating that interference with women’s access to reproductive health care, including failure to ensure that pregnant people do not have “to undergo life-threatening clandestine abortions,” violates these rights to non-discrimination. And in response to Dobbs, Michelle Bachelet, the UN high commissioner for human rights, reiterated this point, emphasising that “[a]ccess to safe, legal and effective abortion is firmly rooted in international human right law and is at the core of women and girls’ autonomy and ability to make their own choices about their bodies and lives, free of discrimination, violence and coercion”.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought international law into heightened focus in recent months. Courts, policy experts, and legislators from both sides of the political spectrum have condemned Russian aggression in violation of international law. Countries around the world have expressed a renewed commitment to building on international and multilateral agreements. Yet by allowing states to ban abortion, the Supreme Court has staked a position that plainly runs afoul of the US’s treaty obligations. If we are to demand that other countries and states respect their international commitments, then we should, too. The Constitution requires no less.​
 
Obeying treaties is for lesser countries, right?
 
You're going to get splinters from that barrel.
 
If you think I support the corrupt, law-breaking, far-right omnishambles that is currently at Westminster, you clearly have missed pretty much everything about me.
 
Obeying treaties is for lesser countries, right?
Well, yes, given how John Bolton actually admitted to planning coups for the US government. Which, coupled with Trump's failed attempt on the 6th of January last year, really tells you that to the conservative/alt-right/libertarian wing even part of their own country is ‘notAmerican’.
 
It was idle rather than personal snark, really. More directed at the article.
 
(x-post)
If you think I support the corrupt, law-breaking, far-right omnishambles that is currently at Westminster, you clearly have missed pretty much everything about me.
It was idle rather than personal snark, really. More directed at the article.
I think Arakhor was mixing up metaphors, actually. This is about shooting fish in a barrel if I read things right.
 
I thought it was about rolling in a barrel. My mistake.
 
I have this sudden desire to go visit Niagara.
 
Well, yes, given how John Bolton actually admitted to planning coups for the US government. Which, coupled with Trump's failed attempt on the 6th of January last year, really tells you that to the conservative/alt-right/libertarian wing even part of their own country is ‘notAmerican’.

That ilk firmly believes that they have the right to do whatever they want to the rest of the world, apparently including their own country, because "screw you, my gun is bigger than yours"
 
No right to privacy you say?

SCOTUS judges 'doxxed' after overturning Roe v Wade

The US Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade last month may have been doxxed – had their personal information including physical and IP addresses, and credit card info revealed – according to threat intel firm Cybersixgill.

In a twist on using personal data for questionable purposes, it appears some hacktivists are taking matters into their own hands and seemingly leaked private information about five conservative Supremes: Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, according to research published today by Cybersixgill's security research lead Dov Lerner.
Although Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the majority, the doxxers didn't expose his personal data.

Lerner, who told The Register he found the doxes on "various dark web forums," said the "most notable" dox happened on June 30, and alleges to include physical addresses, IP addresses, and credit card information, including CVV (which the doxers called "little funny 3 numbers on the back") and expiration date.

In a separate forum post, a doxxer published what's said to be Alito's and Thomas' spouses names, birthdays, email addresses, phone numbers, social media accounts, and vehicle makes and models, judging from a screen shot.​
 
No right to privacy you say?

right to privacy is irrelevant to roe v wade, which is considering whether killing a fetus is legal (a question that was never a matter of privacy). that does not mean that doxxing someone is okay.
 
right to privacy is irrelevant to roe v wade
From UNESCO:

In the 1973 landmark case Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court applied the core constitutional principle of privacy and liberty to a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy. In Roe, the Court held that the constitutional right to privacy includes a woman’s right to decide whether to have an abortion.​
 
From UNESCO:

In the 1973 landmark case Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court applied the core constitutional principle of privacy and liberty to a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy. In Roe, the Court held that the constitutional right to privacy includes a woman’s right to decide whether to have an abortion.​

i'm aware of their "logic" in making the ruling, and hold it was nonsensical/bad law. i have already stated the reason elsewhere, but the gist is that either you're killing a person per the law (privacy is irrelevant), or you aren't (making this a procedure with normal hipaa protections etc --> state is unreasonably overstepping its constraint of individual liberty/autonomy/property rights).

it is impossible in the legal sense to frame roe v wade as a question of privacy without implicitly answering the question of fetal personhood with "no". it amounts to the courts telling states who is and isn't a person.

we will see this before scotus again, sooner or later. someone will assert the fetus is not yet a person, therefore a state's laws are unconstitutional infringement on bodily autonomy. and such a case has merit, overwhelmingly so for states that don't bother to define personhood.

"who gets to decide" will be an extremely important thing to answer. frankly i'm not comfortable with any branch of government deciding who gets to be a person with legal protections, in principle. but it probably is best with legislature.

the biggest risk is federal government deciding to legislate this unreasonably early w/o basis in a future term. i'm not sure current scotus would block it. but compared to a president or scotus deciding this w/o any checks on it, it's still at least a little better.
 
Did the SCOTUS miss the important part of the constitution?

I have tried to reduce it to the most salient points, but the original is probably worth reading if you have time.

Conspicuously absent from the constitutional analysis in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health was any acknowledgement of Article VI of the Constitution, which provides that treaties are “the supreme law of the land.”

Two such treaties – the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) – recognise the human rights to life, privacy, and non-discrimination. Taken together, these treaties, and the rights they safeguard, require access to safe and lawful abortion services as a matter of law.

The US, moreover, has signed and ratified both instruments, which means that the ICCPR and ICERD are binding laws upon our country.

First, Article 6 of the ICCPR provides that “[e]very human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”

As guaranteed by the ICCPR, the right to life does not apply prenatally. In fact, during the ICCPR’s drafting – in which the US played a key part – the delegations specifically voted against adding language stating that the right to life began at conception. The UN Human Rights Council has held in multiple cases that the right to life does not apply from conception. On the contrary, it has emphasised the need to uphold a women’s right to life by protecting abortion access.

This interpretation of the ICCPR is supported by evidence that abortion bans do not eliminate abortions, but rather result in more unsafe abortions. Unsafe abortions increase maternal morbidity and mortality. More women will, therefore, die unnecessarily because of abortion bans – the very definition of arbitrary deprivation of life.

Second, although Dobbs rejects the notion that the Constitution provides for a right to privacy, that right is guaranteed by the ICCPR. Article 17 of the ICCPR provides that “[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation”. The UN Human Rights Committee has concluded, in varying contexts, that restrictions on abortion infringe upon this privacy right.

Third, Article 26 of the ICCPR provides that “the law shall … guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”. ICERD, in Article 5, contains similar language.

Again, the UN Human Rights Committee has issued authoritative guidance stating that interference with women’s access to reproductive health care, including failure to ensure that pregnant people do not have “to undergo life-threatening clandestine abortions,” violates these rights to non-discrimination. And in response to Dobbs, Michelle Bachelet, the UN high commissioner for human rights, reiterated this point, emphasising that “[a]ccess to safe, legal and effective abortion is firmly rooted in international human right law and is at the core of women and girls’ autonomy and ability to make their own choices about their bodies and lives, free of discrimination, violence and coercion”.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought international law into heightened focus in recent months. Courts, policy experts, and legislators from both sides of the political spectrum have condemned Russian aggression in violation of international law. Countries around the world have expressed a renewed commitment to building on international and multilateral agreements. Yet by allowing states to ban abortion, the Supreme Court has staked a position that plainly runs afoul of the US’s treaty obligations. If we are to demand that other countries and states respect their international commitments, then we should, too. The Constitution requires no less.​

The US violates international treaties at will, constantly.
 
Abortion rights protestors arrested, HALF of them Members of Congress!!

I thought the capitol police was run by congress? How come they are arresting them?

At least 17 Democratic lawmakers, including Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have been arrested at an abortion rights protest outside the United States Supreme Court, amid increasing anger over the controversial overturning of Roe v Wade last month.​
The US Capitol police said on Twitter that the demonstrators had blocked traffic on a nearby road and were given three warnings before officers made the arrests.​
“We made a total of 35 arrests for Crowding, Obstructing or Incommoding,” the police said. “That arrest number includes 17 Members of Congress.”​

New word for me: Incommoding. It should be being caught in possession of a commode.

2022-07-19T190542Z_932057306_RC25FV9FGAQ8_RTRMADP_3_USA-ABORTION.jpg

Those evil criminals

And big tech are still selling sensitive personal data regarding pregnancy tests

According to a Twitter user who purchased a pregnancy test at the drug store chain, used a Walgreens reward chain during checkout, and then received a gift box containing Enfamil infant formula by mail.

In addition to calling into question why a formula maker would mail free samples to someone who doesn't necessarily need them in the midst of a formula shortage, the move also highlights data privacy concerns — many of which have become more serious in a post-Roe America.

At least nine states have banned abortion following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which provided constitutional protection for women seeking the procedure. Some of these states have followed Texas' lead in offering a cash bounty to citizens that succeed in suing anyone who helps a woman get an illegal abortion.

There's a spate of new bills introduced by Democratic lawmakers that would make it illegal for data brokers to sell sensitive location and health information about medical treatment and personal information that fertility apps track, such as when someone ovulates or has sex.

And just last week, the Federal Trade Commission warned companies it will take legal action against businesses selling this type of personal data.

Despite these efforts, however, privacy advocates worry that post-Roe, a woman's digital footprint can be used to build a legal case against her in states that have banned abortion — for example, if she buys a pregnancy test and then doesn't deliver a baby in nine months.​
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom