Roe vs Wade overturned

[Farm Boy]

Yes. And being the sort of idiots that pass seat belt laws, we use them to harass people of color.

I'm suggesting the federal law we should pass consider limiting the sort of prosecutorial actions states can pursue related to the status of women's pregnancies.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Garland Threatens States Over Abortion Access
BY SADIE GURMAN

WASHINGTON— Attorney General Merrick Garland threatened to sue states that have outlawed or restricted abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last month—and said the Justice Department would ask a judge to toss out a Texas lawsuit seeking to block federal rules requiring doctors to perform abortions in emergency situations.
“The Justice Department is going to use every tool we have to ensure reproductive freedom,” Mr. Garland said Wednesday, adding that its lawyers would be looking at options including initiating litigation or joining private lawsuits against state abortion restrictions. He didn’t say what legal footing those efforts would have after last month’s ruling eliminated the constitutional right to abortion.
Texas sued the federal government last week after the Department of Health and Human Services said a federal law protecting access to emergency treatment means hospitals must provide an abortion if a doctor deems it necessary to stabilize a patient, even if the procedure isn’t legal under state law.

“This could not be more straightforward,” Mr. Garland said. “Where that stabilizing treatment is abortion, [hospitals] must provide the abortion.”
HHS released updated guidance to reduce confusion among hospitals and doctors about when an emergency abortion is legal after the Supreme Court’s ruling led to a patchwork of state abortion laws, some with narrow exceptions to protect a pregnant woman’s life. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the federal rules fly in the face of the high court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jack-son Women’s Health Organization. That decision triggered a near-total abortion ban in Texas from the moment of fertilization, tightening access beyond the state’s recent law, in place since September, prohibiting the procedure after about six weeks of pregnancy.
“They are trying to have their appointed bureaucrats mandate that hospitals and emergency-medicine physicians perform abortions,” Mr. Paxton said in announcing the suit last week. A representative for Mr. Paxton didn’t respond to a request to comment Wednesday.

The Justice Department’s plan to request the suit’s dismissal is a first move as it contemplates what legal experts say are the Biden administration’s limited options to push for the availability of abortion after the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The department said last week it has formed a task force made up of lawyers from across the Justice Department and led by Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta. Among other aims, the group will evaluate state laws that hinder women’s ability to seek abortions in states where the procedure remains legal or that ban federally approved medication that terminates a pregnancy. The team will also oppose state efforts to penalize federal employees who provide what the Justice Department called “reproductive health services” authorized by federal law.

With regard to Texas, Mr. Garland said federal law preempts state laws for hospital patients who are experiencing a medical emergency that threatens a pregnant woman’s health and life. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act requires hospitals to provide treatment to save a patient’s life, as well as to prevent organ dysfunction or serious impairment of bodily function.

 

[Samson]

“The Justice Department is going to use every tool we have to ensure reproductive freedom,” Mr. Garland said Wednesday, adding that its lawyers would be looking at options including initiating litigation or joining private lawsuits against state abortion restrictions. He didn’t say what legal footing those efforts would have after last month’s ruling eliminated the constitutional right to abortion.

This is cool and all, but I feel he could choose his words better. We are talking about emergency abortions in the ER, this is not "reproductive freedom", it is life saving medical treatment.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I am not impressed with Garland.

 

[choxorn]

I am not impressed with Garland.

His entire tenure as attorney general has been more less "does the absolute bare minimum he's required to do and that's nowhere close to enough"

 

[Takhisis]

I don't see any other possible conclusion if a "human life" begins at fertilization.

Aaaah, so that's why they treat us like excrement.

 

[Hygro]

If that's your point, I'm guessing the derailed train knows what it's looking at.

Or are you not of the same opinion as that quote and the quote it quoted? That criminalizing miscarriages is not a particularly compelling train of thought, and for the most part, laws will slowly be generated even in Redsville states to deal with that. The polling suggests its inexorability. Won't happen without stupid cases popping up though. So coverage is good. The news is never scarier than when it is all good.

I don’t think so. They still put women in various other American countries in jail for miscarriage. Time and time again. What makes you think they’re worse?

 

[Farm Boy]

Worse?

I don't understand.

 

[sophie]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/07/22/south-carolina-bill-abortion-websites/

Shortly after the Supreme Court ruling that overturned the right to abortion in June, South Carolina state senators introduced legislation that would make it illegal to “aid, abet or conspire with someone” to obtain an abortion.

The bill aims to block more than abortion: Provisions would outlaw providing information over the internet or phone about how to obtain an abortion. It would also make it illegal to host a website or “[provide] an internet service” with information that is “reasonably likely to be used for an abortion” and directed at pregnant people in the state.
Legal scholars say the proposal is likely a harbinger of other state measures, which may restrict communication and speech as they seek to curtail abortion. The June proposal, S. 1373, is modeled off a blueprint created by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), an antiabortion group, and designed to be replicated by lawmakers across the country.

 

[Arakhor]

I wonder what nonsense idea SCOTUS will use to argue that somehow that's not in violation of the First Amendment.

 

[Farm Boy]

Conspiracy laws punish speech, specifically. As if it was the full crime, generally. Should I be allowed to post how to make farm fertilizers into large scale explosives, then give recommendations on where to rent U-Hauls, price things out for you, and give suggestions on what local infrastructure is critical? Or maybe filled with children/Democrats/Republicans/<insert racial/gender/religious/sexual demographic here>?

Interesting times.

 

[Samson]

Conspiracy laws punish speech, specifically. As if it was the full crime, generally. Should I be allowed to post how to make farm fertilizers into large scale explosives, then give recommendations on where to rent U-Hauls, price things out for you, and give suggestions on what local infrastructure is critical? Or maybe filled with children/Democrats/Republicans/<insert racial/gender/religious/sexual demographic here>?

Interesting times.

I think so. The anarchists cookbook has been found protected speech hasn't it? Criminalising this place because of recommendations for sources of abortion pills sounds a bit facist.

 

[Farm Boy]

That's why I didn't stop at the recipe in the hypothetical. I bet if I sent you U-Haul addresses clustered around fertilizer pickup and nearby infrastructure, it wouldn't take much positive intent or suggestion of positive intent to land a conspiracy sentence.

 

[JollyRoger]

Have you watched these pro-abortion, pro-murder rallies? The people are just disgusting. Why is it that the women with the least likelihood of getting pregnant are the ones most worried about having abortions? Nobody wants to impregnate you if you look like a thumb. These people are odious from the inside out. They’re like 5′2″, 350 pounds, and they’re like, ‘Give me my abortions or I’ll get up and march and protest. A few of them need to get up and march — they need to get up and march for like an hour a day. Swing those arms, get the blood pumpin’, maybe mix in a salad.

https://www.newsweek.com/sex-traffi...er-matt-gaetz-makes-odious-women-jibe-1727430

Brought to you by Matt Gaetz - the fella that is so ugly that he has to pay for it and no one over 18 is willing to sell to him

 

[Samson]

That's why I didn't stop at the recipe in the hypothetical. I bet if I sent you U-Haul addresses clustered around fertilizer pickup and nearby infrastructure, it wouldn't take much positive intent or suggestion of positive intent to land a conspiracy sentence.

I see your point. So this post could be worse than the ACB because it tells you where to get stuff. Mad from my point of view, but there is a certain logic to it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Conspiracy laws punish speech, specifically. As if it was the full crime, generally. Should I be allowed to post how to make farm fertilizers into large scale explosives, then give recommendations on where to rent U-Hauls, price things out for you, and give suggestions on what local infrastructure is critical? Or maybe filled with children/Democrats/Republicans/<insert racial/gender/religious/sexual demographic here>?

Interesting times.

Rent a hit man!

How a Fake Rent-a-Hitman Site Became an Accidental Murder-for-Hire Sting Operation

You’d think no one would be stupid enough to book a murderer-for-hire on a website called RentAHitman.com. Bob Innes is here to tell you people are a lot dumber than you realize

www.rollingstone.com

 

[Lexicus]

I wonder what nonsense idea SCOTUS will use to argue that somehow that's not in violation of the First Amendment.

I see your point. So this post could be worse than the ACB because it tells you where to get stuff. Mad from my point of view, but there is a certain logic to it.

The logic of it is that abortion is murder and you're conspiring to commit murder.

 

[uppi]

This is going to be really messy across state lines: Suppose a resident of South Carolina posts information about abortion access on a social media site provided by a Californian company.
Could the company be forced to provide information to help the prosecution of the poster?
Could it be forced to censor this in South Carolina?
Does it make a difference whether a part of the CDN hosting the site is located in South Carolina?
Could a local ISP be forced to censor the site?

Worst case: The involved service providers don't want to fight this and voluntarily remove anything that could be constructed as information about abortion.

 

[Arwon]

This is going to be really messy across state lines: Suppose a resident of South Carolina posts information about abortion access on a social media site provided by a Californian company.
Could the company be forced to provide information to help the prosecution of the poster?
Could it be forced to censor this in South Carolina?
Does it make a difference whether a part of the CDN hosting the site is located in South Carolina?
Could a local ISP be forced to censor the site?

Worst case: The involved service providers don't want to fight this and voluntarily remove anything that could be constructed as information about abortion.

Wait til they realise they have the internet in other countries with sensible abortion laws, Northwest Nebraskota is gonna have to sue the whole world.

 

[Lexicus]

This is going to be really messy across state lines: Suppose a resident of South Carolina posts information about abortion access on a social media site provided by a Californian company.
Could the company be forced to provide information to help the prosecution of the poster?
Could it be forced to censor this in South Carolina?
Does it make a difference whether a part of the CDN hosting the site is located in South Carolina?
Could a local ISP be forced to censor the site?

Worst case: The involved service providers don't want to fight this and voluntarily remove anything that could be constructed as information about abortion.

Worst case is the Supreme Court goes full fetal personhood and state laws allowing abortion are rendered inoperative.