Roe vs Wade overturned

[EnglishEdward]

Might be because men don't really go to doctors as much meaning it's found later?

Perhaps, but as it is rarer; doctors don't look for it.

 

[Samson]

Some numbers from 538:

[table=head]
POLLSTER|DATES|APPROVE|DISAPPROVE|DIFFERENCE
YouGov|June 24|37%|50%|-13
YouGov|June 24-25|31|47|-16
Marist College/NPR/PBS NewsHour|June 24-25|40|56|-16
YouGov/CBS News|June 24-25|41|59|-18
Monmouth University|June 24-25|37|60|-23
YouGov/Yahoo News|June 24-27|33|49|-16
YouGov/The Economist|June 25-28|42|49|-7
[/table]
But it’s not just that Americans largely disapprove of the Dobbs decision. A third YouGov poll, this one fielded June 24-25, gave respondents 11 different choices to describe their reaction to the decision, and Americans reported feeling disgusted (34 percent) at a higher rate than any other emotion. This was closely followed by feeling sad (33 percent), angry (32 percent) and outraged (31 percent). A far smaller share of Americans reported positive emotions about the decision, such as feeling satisfied (19 percent), grateful (18 percent), happy (17 percent) and thrilled (12 percent). Notably, only 20 percent of Americans said they felt surprised by the decision, perhaps due to the notorious leaked draft opinion from early May as well as the court’s recent track record, which has been very conservative.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Dumb question for an USians. If Biden made some federal law assuming it passed the SC next Republican president can repeal it?

And/or use it as precedent for nationwide ban?

As stated, congress passes laws and it can repeal them too. It just passes a new law that says the old one is now removed. The President has to sign it. Repealing an amendment is different and more complicated.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

My guy, there's a lot of things that shouldn't stand that do stand (and vice versa), because the courts have been captured by far-right extremists who don't care for things like "logical implications" or "functional laws", they just wish to bend the facts of a case and the words of a law as written to decree whatever the hell they feel like.

i see more of this out of liberal justices than conservative justices lately.

 

[Narz]

Yes clearly US, UK, and global life expectancy showing women living 3-5 years longer than men means that men are the ones negatively discriminated against in healthcare, and it has nothing to do with testosterone's impact on male immune systems, or male tendencies to engage in more dangerous habits and behaviors, or lower likelihood for males to seek prompt treatment for medical issues.

(/sarcasm, in case it isn't adequately obvious)

Men are also more likely to get beat up, put in jail (and for longer for the same crimes) and abused by police.

The reason men take more risks than women is because men unwilling to take risks to pursue mates and status & to protect their mates and offspring have been sexually selected against.

For a woman to reproduce she pretty much just has to be willing to reproduce.

And yes testosterone is kinda damaging long term that's why it's attractive to mates, even just being male is taking a risk to impress a female.

It being more socially acceptable to seek help as a woman isn't active discrimination of course just something men need to consider as a subconscious habit they need to consciously overcome.

Men are also generally more susceptible to environmental pollution

 

[Farm Boy]

They're social circles are much more likely to be garbage as they age, too, and people get creeped out by unattached men doing normal things in public. Cut the social foundation out from under a guy and odds are not so terrible that he actually doesn't have anything to look forward to between now and... later.

But this is a weird thread for men's health stuff.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

notably above "always legal" is <30% of respondents. what does "mostly legal" mean in that context?

most abortions are within 12 weeks even now (over 80%). quick search suggests 93% by week 14. thus even florida's 15 week ban would imply that they are "mostly legal". i'm not sure how much useful policy information can be gathered using a poll like that, other than that making them completely illegal is very unpopular.

 

[Farm Boy]

notably above "always legal" is <30% of respondents. what does "mostly legal" mean in that context?

most abortions are within 12 weeks even now (over 80%). quick search suggests 93% by week 14. thus even florida's 15 week ban would imply that they are "mostly legal". i'm not sure how much useful policy information can be gathered using a poll like that, other than that making them completely illegal is very unpopular.

Yup. We could get France's model passed. An actual legislated approach to fight over, rather than the top cabal deciding essentially unadvised by national consensus.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Yup. We could get France's model passed. An actual legislated approach to fight over, rather than the top cabal deciding essentially unadvised by national consensus.

So tell me have any Republicans actually proposed anything like this?

 

[Farm Boy]

Not that I'm aware. The pro life wing is over the moon and will take a while to come down. They're talking national bans for the moment.

I'm guessing the greatest threat to a national abortion law modeled off the French timeframe will be that those most in support of abortion rights will be more permissive within their states than a national law would be, and there is just something to being able to call your neighbors the savage other. Is there not? Get to "provide charity" and whatnot, too. Much classier than just paying taxes.

Not to be cynical! and I'm gonna be a little bit with that Hyde Amendment reference.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Tentatively speaking, the next thing I predict the court will never do is come down hard on the administrative state that writes all the regulations that have the force of law.

It might be proper to have Congress vote on every little detail, but such a hardcore ruling would cause total chaos as we attempted to return to a century ago.

The CDC eviction moratorium along with the OSHA covid-vaccine-in-the-workplace being overturned months ago would be the tip of the iceberg of what that would look like.

A congressional declaration of war is also never making a comeback.

Looks like the EPA got clobbered too.
'The court doesn't care': CNN legal analyst delivers chilling implications of latest SCOTUS cases (msn.com)

Toobin singled out the court's ruling against the Environmental Protection Agency as particularly problematic, as it could potentially cripple government agencies' ability to regulate anything that is not explicitly mentioned by Congress in its original legislation.

"How does the Education Department administer student loans?" he asked rhetorically.
"How does OSHA deal with COVID?
How does the Securities and Exchange Commission enforce fraud regulations?
All of that is implicated by the decision yesterday."

Dumb question for an USians. If Biden made some federal law assuming it passed the SC next Republican president can repeal it?

And/or use it as precedent for nationwide ban?

A back and forth scenario where Congress passes a law mandating abortion access or outlawing it nationwide depends greatly on the 60 vote filibuster in the Senate or 67 votes if the President vetoes it.
A nationwide ban attempt in 2025 under a Republican President would also have to get past the 60 vote filibuster and any moderate Republicans uncomfortable trampling states' rights or womens' rights.

Things would heat up greatly if the filibuster rule was discarded (50 votes + Vice President to pass) or reverted to the classic filibuster where a Senator can not be halted while speaking and they just talk for 12+ straight hours.

Either of the 2 nationwide laws would probably end up being tested by the Supreme Court again with a high chance of passing through with approval as long as Congress has any scrap of authority to do it constitutionally.

 

[Samson]

They may criminalise this thread:

With Roe struck down, anti-abortion rights groups are facing a “completely different landscape” that will give states the ability to “revisit” policies that were not previously possible, Laura Echevarria, a spokesperson for the anti-abortion rights group National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), told Al Jazeera.

The group released a “model law” on June 15 that states could use as a template for their anti-abortion laws in the aftermath of Roe.

A section of that model suggests criminal penalties for those who aid and abet abortion access, which can include anyone who offers advice on how to obtain pills over the “telephone, the internet, or any other medium”.

A December 2021 decision by the federal health agency the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) widened access to abortion pills by allowing them to be delivered through the mail.

It was a decision that caused outrage among anti-abortion rights groups such as Students for Life Action, which said in a statement that the FDA had “paved the way for the abortion industry to deliver death by mail”.

Several studies have found that the practice [of using mifepristone followed by misoprostol up to to 12 weeks] is safe, and various health bodies including the World Health Organization, have said that abortion pills can be safely taken without the presence of a doctor. Medical abortion is safe and effective in the second and third trimesters. The WHO recommends that medical abortions performed after 12 weeks' gestation be supervised by a medical practitioner.​

 

[Arakhor]

Good luck with that attempt. Maybe the pro-birthers will finally get tired of winning: who knows?

 

[Birdjaguar]

A section of that model suggests criminal penalties for those who aid and abet abortion access, which can include anyone who offers advice on how to obtain pills over the “telephone, the internet, or any other medium”.

Cool we get another free speech issue.

 

[Kyriakos]

They may criminalise this thread:

They are going to need a better microscope ^_^

 

[choxorn]

Cool we get another free speech issue.

I imagine there's other precedents that could be pointed to saying "Giving someone advice on how to do crime isn't protected by free speech rights" but what if you said something about abortions as a citizen of a state where it's legal, on a forum hosted in a state where it's legal, not really directed towards anyone in particular?

 

[RobAnybody]

The obvious parallel (not meaning to compare them on any level other than just legally) is marijuana. Some US states it is legal, some it is not. I have no idea: is there any legal implication to someone in a "it's legal" state advising someone about buying marijuana in a "it's not legal" state? Even if the advice is simply "come to our state & buy it"?

 

[Samson]

The obvious parallel (not meaning to compare them on any level other than just legally) is marijuana. Some US states it is legal, some it is not. I have no idea: is there any legal implication to someone in a "it's legal" state advising someone about buying marijuana in a "it's not legal" state? Even if the advice is simply "come to our state & buy it"?

Presumably the most dangerous implications of this are when both are in the same state, particularly the same room. Would that be incitement?

 

[choxorn]

The obvious parallel (not meaning to compare them on any level other than just legally) is marijuana. Some US states it is legal, some it is not. I have no idea: is there any legal implication to someone in a "it's legal" state advising someone about buying marijuana in a "it's not legal" state? Even if the advice is simply "come to our state & buy it"?

I don't think anyone has ever really tried that, the most illegal states tend to do is have cops near the borders of legal states pulling over cars coming over the border checking for weed

 

[Senethro]

Where are we at?

Oh. Here: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3544588-10-year-old-girl-denied-abortion-in-ohio/