Roe vs Wade overturned

Most freedom loving country https://www.vice.com/en/article/4axwqw/oklahoma-threatens-librarians-dont-use-the-word-abortion

Library workers across Oklahoma’s Metropolitan Library System (MLS) were shocked this week after receiving instructions to avoid using the word “abortion” and not to help patrons locate abortion-related information on either library computers or their own devices. Workers were warned that they could be held legally liable and face penalties under the state's abortion laws.

“If a staff member gives any information on how to obtain an abortion, then that person may be found personally liable and will also make MLS liable,” says a memo, which was obtained by Motherboard after being emailed to workers at one library branch in the Oklahoma City area. “Civil penalties include a $10,000 fine plus jail time and the staff member will lose their job due to being informed by MLS and disregarding the warning.”

The message also asks library workers to be wary of people who try to trick staff into giving them information on how to obtain an abortion so they can report them to authorities. Branch managers have given similar guidance to library workers across the system, according to workers who spoke with Motherboard on condition of anonymity.
Just more illustration of what other offences get created when you do something as demented as banning basic medial care.
 
What legislation on abortion means in hospitals in Texas

The current national standard of care of women not in labor presenting with rupture of membranes before neonatal viability [defined as 22 weeks here] allows expectant management or immediate delivery following shared decision-making. We report the experiences from 2 urban, inner-city healthcare systems in Texas after these legislative actions.​
Before the passage of state Senate Bills 8 and 4 (effective 21 September 2021), women with these conditions were counseled and offered expectant management or induction of labor. After September 2021, all were expectantly managed with medical intervention when there was an immediate threat to maternal life.​
Consistent with reports evaluating outcomes in women requesting expectant management, most of the pregnant patients at <22 weeks presenting with medical indications for delivery experienced serious morbidity, and fetal outcomes were poor. Expectant management resulted in 57% of patients having a serious maternal morbidity compared with 33% who elected immediate pregnancy interruption under similar clinical circumstances reported in states without such legislation.​

There is more detail in the results section paper, but it is not very nice reading so I have not included it here.

It is referencing this paper in the same issue, which found:
  • Maternal morbidity in 60.2% of cases in the expectantly managed group and 33.0% in the termination of pregnancy group
  • ICU admissions and unplanned hysterectomy only occurred in the expectantly managed group
  • Amound women pursuing expectant management 15.7% avoided morbidity and had a neonate survive to discharge
1-s2.0-S0002937822005361-gr1.jpg


More general summary from nature
 
Last edited:
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.
They might just use this as a stepping-stone to having widespread Internet censorship as if the US were Saudi Arabia, Iran or Russia, countries which it officially deplores.
Worst case is the Supreme Court goes full fetal personhood and state laws allowing abortion are rendered inoperative.
It depends. Here a fetus does have full personhood e.g. regarding the right to inherit but still there is a right to medically supervised abortion.
Now, given that the current SCOTUS and several legislative bodies have already said that they're just looking for any excuse to impose top-down ‘democracy’, then it's a sham anyway.
 
Most freedom loving country https://www.vice.com/en/article/4axwqw/oklahoma-threatens-librarians-dont-use-the-word-abortion


Just more illustration of what other offences get created when you do something as demented as banning basic medial care.
personally liable for giving info? that's a hole republicans shouldn't want to be jumping into. i don't want to live in that world, and i don't give a **** which party starts banning speech, i still don't want to live in that world.

i would say such "liability" would be laughed out of court, but civil forfeiture is still a thing in most states. it doesn't logically follow that partial abortion ban implies trashing everybody's rights to a ridiculous extent, but then logic is in short supply on this topic.

Now, given that the current SCOTUS and several legislative bodies have already said that they're just looking for any excuse to impose top-down ‘democracy’, then it's a sham anyway.

we got tastes of how this looks with covid measures in many places, and it won't be less bitter when the other side does it.
 

Samuel Alito: Top US judge mocks world leaders over abortion ruling​

A conservative member of the US Supreme Court has mocked world leaders who criticised last month's ruling that overturned American abortion rights.
Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the ruling, dismissed criticism from a host of prominent figures, including UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
He joked that Mr Johnson, who leaves office in September, had "paid the price" for arguing against the verdict.
Mr Alito, a devout Catholic, was speaking at a conference in Rome.
"I had the honour this term of writing I think the only supreme court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law," Mr Alito said.
"One of these was Boris Johnson, but he paid the price," he said, drawing laughter from the audience. Mr Johnson, who announced his intention to resign earlier this month after a string of scandals, had called the ruling "a big step backwards".

Mr Alito also referenced French President Emmanuel Macron, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry, who had condemned the "rolling back of constitutional rights" in the US during a speech to the UN earlier this month.


"What really wounded me was when the Duke of Sussex addressed the United Nations and seemed to compare the decision whose name may not be spoken with the Russian attack on Ukraine," Mr Alito said.
Prince Harry appeared to be referring to the abortion ruling when he said in his address to the UN: "From the horrific war in Ukraine to the rolling back of constitutional rights here in the United States, we are witnessing a global assault on democracy and freedom..."
Mr Alito's previously unannounced speech was delivered to the Religious Liberty Conference on 21 July and emerged after the University of Notre Dame, who hosted the event, posted footage online on Thursday night.
Referring to religious liberty, he said it was "under attack in many places because it is dangerous to those who want to hold complete power".
Appointed to the court by President George W Bush in 2006, Mr Alito made an intervention that is extremely unusual for a member of the Supreme Court. Justices of America's top court are usually expected to avoid wading into political debates.

Writing on Twitter, Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez said the top judge's "politicized remarks" should be alarming to voters, adding that the "Supreme Court is in a legitimacy crisis".
Mr Alito's intervention came on the same day as a liberal member of the court, Justice Elena Kagan, warned it would be a "dangerous thing for a democracy" if the court's conservative majority lost the confidence of voters.
"I'm not talking about any particular decision or even any particular series of decisions, but if over time the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that's a dangerous thing for a democracy," she said at a conference in Montana,
Opinion polls suggest that confidence in the court is at an all-time low in the wake of several controversial decisions by the court. Just 25% of those polled said they had confidence in the body.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62344354
 
we got tastes of how this looks with covid measures in many places, and it won't be less bitter when the other side does it.
Right, there's fine people on both sides.
 
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?

"Other American countries?" :confused:

You've only got one... the rest are their own countries.


It's starting to look more and more like the Republic of Gilead is forming south of here. Beware of a run on red, teal, pink, brown, grey, and white cloth (to make the uniforms of Handmaids, Wives, Daughters, Aunts, Marthas, and Handmaids' bonnets/wings... keeping in mind that some women already have Handmaid costumes they wear at women's rallies).

Oh, and the restriction on using the 'net to pass along information... any mention of snailmail restrictions? Homing pigeon, maybe?
 
"Other American countries?" :confused:

You've only got one... the rest are their own countries.


It's starting to look more and more like the Republic of Gilead is forming south of here. Beware of a run on red, teal, pink, brown, grey, and white cloth (to make the uniforms of Handmaids, Wives, Daughters, Aunts, Marthas, and Handmaids' bonnets/wings... keeping in mind that some women already have Handmaid costumes they wear at women's rallies).

Oh, and the restriction on using the 'net to pass along information... any mention of snailmail restrictions? Homing pigeon, maybe?
There's about 35 American countries, at least four of which have total abortion bans with no exceptions and several others where only permitted with a direct risk to life, as well as the USA where some subnational entities have those standards,.
 
There's about 35 American countries, at least four of which have total abortion bans with no exceptions and several others where only permitted with a direct risk to life, as well as the USA where some subnational entities have those standards,
There are North American countries, Central American countries, and South American countries, as well as assorted island countries. The U.S. does not own any of them that are not classified as U.S. territories (or however they phrase it). The rest are independent countries that are not "American."
 
You're seriously going to sit there and claim you've never heard "America" and "American" to refer to the entirety of the continent/two continents? The US doesn't exclusively own that term lol.

And I promise you Hygro was using it in that sense, rather than being confused about US states being countries.
 
Last edited:
You're seriously going to sit there and claim you've never heard "America" and "American" to refer to the entirety of the continent/two continents? The US doesn't exclusively own that term lol.
And in the rest of the continent the US habit of claiming that everybody else here is their backyard i.e. second-class citizens in their own home is often viewed as adding insult to injury.
 
The hat seems aloof from here, often as not.

Spoiler :
:mischief: I kid I kid. As neighbors go, it's hard to ask for a hell of a lot better, probably. Pretty normal for international people who come on student visas to show up at university, then look around shell-shocked at all the non-rich people.
 
View attachment 635500

Semantically, I don't think I've ever thought of Canada as part of the Americas, however
When I went on exchange to Spain during university, one of the classes I did was "History of America" over roughly the 18th and 19th centuries. While much of the semester was about Brazil and Hispanophone America and the US, Canada did get a whole section, as did Haiti.
 
There are North American countries, Central American countries, and South American countries, as well as assorted island countries. The U.S. does not own any of them that are not classified as U.S. territories (or however they phrase it). The rest are independent countries that are not "American."

 
Oh, for sure we're in North America and part of North America. But we don't think of ourselves as part of "the Americas". I honestly mostly associate that term with the Southern American countries.

I guess because there are fewer countries up here, we can be specific instead of generic when referring to the region
 
I guess when all you have is a hammer! But it definitely could be due to the fact that we are mostly immigrants. Less integration with the Native Americans. So, definitely partially due to our history of being governed by colonizers rather than locals. A bit of a topic drift, so I'll stop
 
Back
Top Bottom