Roe vs Wade overturned

[Arakhor]

And in Brazil as well, maybe? It's certainly not common.

 

[Lexicus]

In the UK, the default option is that you have opted in to organ donation.

What is the opt out system?

The law around organ donation is changing in England. This page answers to some of the most common questions about the coming law change regarding organ donation and the opt out system, including: How is the law changing? | What is Max and Keira's Law? | Why do we need an opt out system? | Am I...

www.organdonation.nhs.uk

​

Unless you specifically opt out, any part of your dead body that may be deemed useful is de fact government property.

But if you can opt out then you can opt out. How can women opt out of being forced to use their organs to carry a baby to term under the conditions of these abortion bans?

 

[EnglishEdward]

Answer = Emigration

 

[Lexicus]

Answer = Emigration

Wow, what an unhelpful stupid answer.

 

[EnglishEdward]

If one doesn't like the law where one is; there are four main alternatives:

(a) accept it and put up with it
(b) break it, and try to avoid or mitigate the consequences
(c) change it
(d) go somewhere where else the law is more to one's liking.

Emigration is an example of (d).

In this discussion instance and in the USA, emigration would mean moving to a pro-choice state.

 

[Traitorfish]

Unless you specifically opt out, any part of your dead body that may be deemed useful is de fact government property.

That's a pretty tenuous reading. The phrasing "considered to have agreed" concedes that any recovery of organs is at the consent of the deceased, they're simply declaring that this consent is assumed unless stated otherwise. It's not as if you or your family have to buy your way out of the scheme, you simply have to inform the state of your wishes, at no cost beyond the inconvenience of doing so. There may be grounds for objecting to this scheme on its own grounds, but the claim that it constitutes nationalisation of the dead really doesn't seem like a tenable basis for such an objection, and so doesn't seem to imply any further precedent.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Answer = Emigration

Right, the conformist, theocratic, anti-democratic authoritarians are already planning how to go after people in their states who go out of state, and anyone who helps them. Soon enough, they'll be coming for those of us who live in states that are pro-choice, with a federal ban. There's been a lot said and written about why Americans move around less than they used to - comparing, for example, the Great Recession of 2009 to prior eras such as the Great Depression and the Great Migration - but at least in the case of abortion rights, merely moving to another state will only be a temporary measure. Hopefully, Kansas (which recently voted against a ballot measure to restrict abortion rights) represents a wave and isn't just a flash in the pan. This Fall's mid-term elections for the Federal legislature could be enormously important for anyone with a uterus (and anyone who's in a relationship with someone with a uterus; and anyone who has any affection for someone with a uterus).

 

[EgonSpengler]

Hey, more good news: New York's 19th Congressional District elected a pro-choice candidate over a self-proclaimed moderate Republican with a back-and-forth history on abortion. Before you say, "well, it's New York...", the 19th is kind of a 'swing district.' They voted for George H. W. Bush, for George W. Bush, and for Donald Trump in 2016, but also for Bill Clinton, Barrack Obama and Joe Biden; and in the last 30 years, they've sent a Republican to the House 5 times (one of whom served 6 terms) and a Democrat 4 times.

EDIT: The Republican was also running on a "law & order" platform, although I'm not quite sure what it means that the voters prioritized abortion rights. I know New York City is one of the places that's had an increase in crime during the pandemic, but the 19th district is north of the city.

 

[EnglishEdward]

That's a pretty tenuous reading. The phrasing "considered to have agreed" concedes that any recovery of organs is at the consent of the deceased, they're simply declaring that this consent is assumed unless stated otherwise. It's not as if you or your family have to buy your way out of the scheme, you simply have to inform the state of your wishes, at no cost beyond the inconvenience of doing so. There may be grounds for objecting to this scheme on its own grounds, but the claim that it constitutes nationalisation of the dead really doesn't seem like a tenable basis for such an objection, and so doesn't seem to imply any further precedent.

My single sentence summary is, apart from missing the "o" in de facto, correct.

Assuming one has agreed consent, when no one asked one for it, is a legal fiction.

Right, the conformist, theocratic, anti-democratic authoritarians are already planning how to go after people in their states who go out of state, and anyone who helps them. Soon enough, they'll be coming for those of us who live in states that are pro-choice, with a federal ban. There's been a lot said and written about why Americans move around less than they used to - comparing, for example, the Great Recession of 2009 to prior eras such as the Great Depression and the Great Migration - but at least in the case of abortion rights, merely moving to another state will only be a temporary measure. Hopefully, Kansas (which recently voted against a ballot measure to restrict abortion rights) represents a wave and isn't just a flash in the pan. This Fall's mid-term elections for the Federal legislature could be enormously important for anyone with a uterus (and anyone who's in a relationship with someone with a uterus; and anyone who has any affection for someone with a uterus).

Oh, please.

To pass a federal legislative ban, the anti-abortionists would have to win both elected houses with a majority sufficient to override a presidential veto.

How likely is that ?

And even if that occurred, there is always Canada !

 

[Farm Boy]

They can't pass a federal straight ban. But they will happily fear monger idiots scared of Kansas who don't read the news. Which is more valuable politically for the moment than trying to pass a federal law modeled after countries that have abortion laws Americans like. So, I'd lump the functional principles in with the ones that were funding Trumpies while running against them. Seems the type.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Oh, please.

To pass a federal legislative ban, the anti-abortionists would have to win both elected houses with a majority sufficient to override a presidential veto.

How likely is that ?

And even if that occurred, there is always Canada !

Or they'd have to win both chambers of Congress and then win the Presidency in 2024, which is not just more likely than overcoming a veto, it's actually frighteningly likely. Donald Trump is polling at about 50% among likely Republican voters right now, which is extremely high this far out (The Economist says polling at 30% right now would make a potential candidate the favorite for the primary). And if Trump decides not to run, the Republican candidate who replaces him might actually do better in the general election than he would.

If I were a betting man, I might actually put some money on the GOP having full control of all three branches of government from 2025-2027. It's up to (a) the voters in Republican primaries, then (b) the voters in the mid-terms this Fall, then (c) a toss-up, at this point, whether Trump runs again. If he decides to run, they might not even need to have a primary. If he decides not to run, I think it's unclear whether anyone can succeed Trump as the "MAGA" figurehead, or even whether Republican voters want another MAGA figurehead. Nobody knows whether "Trumpism" will continue after Trump.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I am unaware of anything in the US constitution assigning the power of making laws on abortions.

Logic would therefore suggest that it is a state right.

Any federal law prohibiting abortion would be contested at SCOTUS.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

If one doesn't like the law where one is; there are four main alternatives:

(a) accept it and put up with it
(b) break it, and try to avoid or mitigate the consequences
(c) change it
(d) go somewhere where else the law is more to one's liking.

Emigration is an example of (d).

In this discussion instance and in the USA, emigration would mean moving to a pro-choice state.

It must be nice to be so privileged to be able to say with a straight face, "If you don't like the law that will ruin your life, just move."

My single sentence summary is, apart from missing the "o" in de facto, correct.

Assuming one has agreed consent, when no one asked one for it, is a legal fiction.



Oh, please.

To pass a federal legislative ban, the anti-abortionists would have to win both elected houses with a majority sufficient to override a presidential veto.

How likely is that ?

And even if that occurred, there is always Canada !

Have you followed Canadian news lately? There are leadership races going on in the right-wing parties both federally and in my province of Alberta. Both races include female candidates who would happily bring in anti-abortion legislation thisfast. They find the decision in the U.S. "encouraging" and really, really, really would love to make that a reality here, too.

Between this and the "conscience rights" legislation that they want to make even stricter than it already is (as in medical personnel and pharmacists would not only be able to refuse, but would also be able to refuse to refer the patient elsewhere, as they are currently required to do when they stick their noses in the air and invoke "conscience" rights), Canada can't be taken for granted.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I am unaware of anything in the US constitution assigning the power of making laws on abortions.

Logic would therefore suggest that it is a state right.

Any federal law prohibiting abortion would be contested at SCOTUS.

Yes, I would think so. The battle will be, in part, about whether it is or not something to be left to the states. "Logic" will have almost nothing to do with it. It will be about who can find the precedent and/or loophole which, when looked at from the right angle, supports their position the best. One small comfort I can take is that, over the course of time, SCOTUS justices appointed by Republican Presidents have tended to defy expectations slightly more often than justices appointed by Democratic Presidents have. That's not something to hang your hat on, though.

 

[EnglishEdward]

It must be nice to be so privileged to be able to say with a straight face, "If you don't like the law that will ruin your life, just move."

It is a logical option, what would you recommend for a pregnant lady in a pro-life state who doesn't want the baby ?

 

[El_Machinae]

My impression was that the answer was said a bit dryly. It wasn't a 'solution' to the problem, it was a response to the problem.

I am unaware of anything in the US constitution assigning the power of making laws on abortions.

It would fall under either medical provision or criminal law, both of which the Federal government can impose into.

 

[EgonSpengler]

It is a logical option, what would you recommend for a pregnant lady in a pro-life state who doesn't want the baby ?

People are already talking about maybe having to revive The Jane Collective.

EDIT: Oh, and smuggling in medications or getting them through the mail. Those medications are something that wasn't available back in the 60s-70s.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

People are already talking about maybe having to revive The Jane Collective.

EDIT: Oh, and smuggling in medications or getting them through the mail. Those medications are something that wasn't available back in the 60s-70s.

He doesn't care

 

[Lexicus]

The Supreme Court will strike down any federal law guaranteeing the right to an abortion. Conversely, the Supreme Court will uphold any federal law banning abortion.

The Presidency can be won by the Republicans, in the maximal scenario (extremely unlikely to happen in real life of course) with tens of millions fewer votes than the Democrats due to the electoral college (the assumption that Congress would need to pass a federal ban over the presidential veto is wrong).

Finally, I denounce the suggestion that moving to Canada is a realistic option to escape the Republican Party in the strongest terms possible. For one thing Canada has plenty of its own crazy misogynists, for another immigrating into Canada isn't easy in general.

It would fall under either medical provision or criminal law, both of which the Federal government can impose into.

With the current makeup of the Supreme Court the text of the constitution is completely irrelevant to any policy outcome anyway.

 

[aelf]

Answer = Emigration

Another answer is when most people your age have emigrated to the other side.