Octopus Overlords

noxiousdog wrote:

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 11:02 am I think it's naive to believe that any form of abortion ban is not designed to chip away at Roe v Wade. This isn't about stopping abortions after 38 weeks. It's about getting a foot in the door to stop all of them.

Unless you're Alabama or Missouri, where you just cut right to the chase.

In California, it's illegal to abort a healthy fetus after 26 weeks. Do you really think they are chipping away at Roe v. Wade?

noxiousdog wrote:In California, it's illegal to abort a healthy fetus after 26 weeks. Do you really think they are chipping away at Roe v. Wade?

Only 9 states have no time restrictions: West Virginia, Vermont, Oregon, New Mexico, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Mississippi, D.C., Colorado, Alaska.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 11:22 am

noxiousdog wrote:In California, it's illegal to abort a healthy fetus after 26 weeks. Do you really think they are chipping away at Roe v. Wade?

Only 9 states have no time restrictions: West Virginia, Vermont, Oregon, New Mexico, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Mississippi, D.C., Colorado, Alaska.

Then what's the issue? Sounds like the states have it figured out on their own.

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 11:10 amAlso this is a great essay linked via my wife.

noxiousdog wrote:

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 11:22 am

noxiousdog wrote:In California, it's illegal to abort a healthy fetus after 26 weeks. Do you really think they are chipping away at Roe v. Wade?

Only 9 states have no time restrictions: West Virginia, Vermont, Oregon, New Mexico, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Mississippi, D.C., Colorado, Alaska.

Then what's the issue? Sounds like the states have it figured out on their own.

Because the national Democratic Party "will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion"

87% of Americans want 3rd trimester abortions banned when it involves a healthy pregnancy.

The Republican Party is proud to stand up for the rights of the unborn and believe all Americans have an unalienable right to life as stated in The Declaration of Independence; Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit partial-birth abortion and permitted States to extend healthcare coverage to children before birth. Republicans have also passed laws for informed consent, mandatory-waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic regulation. 

pr0ner wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 12:14 pm I have heard it speculated that having Kavanaugh on SCOTUS is the ammo pro-life pols needed to go after these restrictive bills. They knew pro-choice advocates would immediately sue to block the bills, which pro-life people want so they could get abortion back in front of SCOTUS in an attempt to overturn Roe.

SCOTUS overturning Nevada v. Hall shows that old precedent can be overturned. The fight for choice (or lack thereof) is underway.

The Texas Senate passed a bill on Tuesday that would ban abortions on the basis of the sex, race or disability of a fetus, and criminalize doctors who perform what opponents call “discriminatory abortions.”

Current state law prohibits abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, but there are certain exceptions, such as when the pregnancy is not viable or the fetus has "severe and irreversible" abnormalities. Senate Bill 1033 would do away with those exceptions — which particularly inflamed Democratic senators, who worry the legislation will unfairly penalize doctors and force women to endure traumatic and ill-fated pregnancies.

Still, the bill passed in a 20-11 vote, with Brownsville Democratic state Sen. Eddie Lucio bucking his party to support it. The bill must still pass the House.
...
Abortion rights advocates argued the bill would force women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term — even if the fetus is likely to die.
...
Democratic senators questioned how the bill would be enforced, and whether the government would be tracking the doctor’s actions, or the woman’s reasons for having an abortion. Hancock said a woman could choose to tell a physician her reasons for seeking an abortion, but that the bill would not require her to do so.

“How would you know that a physician is performing an abortion on the basis of gender?” asked state Sen. Nathan Johnson, D-Dallas. “I think it’s the vehicle for the persecution of people practicing a lawful profession.”

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 9:44 amAnd that in a nutshell is a major reason we have Republicans in office despite their complete unfitness to lead the country.

You, CL, GreenGoo, and whomever else refuse to say there's something horribly wrong with having legalized abortion for healthy pregnancies in the 38th week.

20% of the people say it's the most important voting issue. Another 50% think it's important. And ONLY 13% think it should be legal in the 3rd trimester. Only 30% think it should be legal in the 2nd trimester.

Let that sink in. You refuse to compromise on a position that doesn't happen because people don't terminate healthy 3rd trimester pregnancies, upon which 87% of the country disagrees with you, and for nearly 1/2 of them, it's a major issue.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 11:26 am

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 11:22 am

noxiousdog wrote:In California, it's illegal to abort a healthy fetus after 26 weeks. Do you really think they are chipping away at Roe v. Wade?

Only 9 states have no time restrictions: West Virginia, Vermont, Oregon, New Mexico, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Mississippi, D.C., Colorado, Alaska.

Then what's the issue? Sounds like the states have it figured out on their own.

Because the national Democratic Party "will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion"

87% of Americans want 3rd trimester abortions banned when it involves a healthy pregnancy.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 2:19 pm Are you interpreting the Democratic platform line here as necessarily calling for the abolition of all state anti-abortion laws, including those restricting the aborting of healthy 3rd term fetuses? FWIW I don't take that statement to apply to *all* state anti-abortion laws.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 3:15 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 2:19 pm Are you interpreting the Democratic platform line here as necessarily calling for the abolition of all state anti-abortion laws, including those restricting the aborting of healthy 3rd term fetuses? FWIW I don't take that statement to apply to *all* state anti-abortion laws.

It's seems pretty clear to me, and I would assume Fireball would have stepped in if I was interpreting it incorrectly.

Why do you disagree?

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 3:59 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 3:15 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 2:19 pm Are you interpreting the Democratic platform line here as necessarily calling for the abolition of all state anti-abortion laws, including those restricting the aborting of healthy 3rd term fetuses? FWIW I don't take that statement to apply to *all* state anti-abortion laws.

It's seems pretty clear to me, and I would assume Fireball would have stepped in if I was interpreting it incorrectly.

Why do you disagree?

I support laws restricting the sale of firearms, but I do not support all laws restricting the sale of firearms.

Similarly, saying that one opposes laws restricting a woman's access to abortion does not mean that one automatically supports abolishing laws and regulations requiring abortion-related medical procedures to be performed by licensed individuals and not, say, by dentists, even though the latter do in some sense restrict access to abortion.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 4:19 pm
And yes, this is all semantics. The Democratic Party did not respond to my request for clarification, so it's mostly moot.

Holman wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 4:38 pm Question:In the very near future when abortion is outlawed in some states and legal in others, is it possible for the anti-choice states to make it illegal to travel to pro-choice state for an abortion? (My understanding is that the Alabama law already tries to do this.)

In addition to banning abortion after a heartbeat can be detected, the law's personhood provisions:

Allow fetuses to be claimed as dependents for tax purposes.
Count fetuses as people in official population surveys, which would have implications for political representation.
Allow for women who perform their own abortions outside a formal medical setting to be charged with first-degree murder, which could carry a sentence of up to life in prison or the death penalty.

...

A woman who travels out of state for an abortion — and anyone who assists her — might similarly be charged with conspiracy to commit murder under Georgia's fetal personhood law.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 3:15 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 2:19 pm Are you interpreting the Democratic platform line here as necessarily calling for the abolition of all state anti-abortion laws, including those restricting the aborting of healthy 3rd term fetuses? FWIW I don't take that statement to apply to *all* state anti-abortion laws.

It's seems pretty clear to me, and I would assume Fireball would have stepped in if I was interpreting it incorrectly.

Holman wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 4:55 pm Is it possible for a state where prostitution or gambling is outlawed to prosecute you for indulging in Nevada?

Can a pot-illegal state charge you because you possessed weed for a weekend in Denver?

I'm genuinely wondering how a state charges you with a crime outside of their jurisdiction.

Fireball wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 5:23 pm BTW, we passed the Equality Act in the House today to give LGBT people equal rights under the law.

Fireball wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 5:23 pm Yeah, it's not like I have a job or anything. BTW, we passed the Equality Act in the House today to give LGBT people equal rights under the law.

Platforms are documents often written by the most ideologically rigid people in each party, and rarely line up with actual legislative realities.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 6:13 pm It is very clean, concise, and understandable.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 4:43 pm
instead they'd punish the woman (and anyone that assists her) because all life is sacred (unless we're taking it):

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 5:49 pm

Fireball wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 5:23 pm BTW, we passed the Equality Act in the House today to give LGBT people equal rights under the law.

Congrats! From what I understand it's not likely to be taken up by the Senate, but maybe in 2021?

Fireball wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 12:35 am

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 5:49 pm

Fireball wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 5:23 pm BTW, we passed the Equality Act in the House today to give LGBT people equal rights under the law.

Congrats! From what I understand it's not likely to be taken up by the Senate, but maybe in 2021?

We got eight Republican votes, so if it were to come up in the Senate I think there'd be 51 (but not 60) votes in favor. But yeah, no chance it goes to the floor of a Senate with McConnell in charge. Here's hoping that President Warren, or Harris, or Biden, or Yang, or whoever, is able to sign it in 2021!

The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to a compromise on a restrictive Indiana abortion law that keeps the issue off its docket for now.

The court said a part of the law dealing with disposal of the “remains” of an abortion could go into effect. But it did not take up a part of the law stricken by lower courts that prohibited abortions because tests revealed an abnormality.

The court indicated it would wait for other courts to weigh in before taking up that issue.

The Indiana law at question was signed by Vice President Pence when he was governor of the state.
...
“This court has already acknowledged that a state has a ‘legitimate interest in proper disposal of fetal remains,’ ” the court wrote in the unsigned opinion, citing a 1983 decision. “The only remaining question, then, is whether Indiana’s law is rationally related to the state’s interest in proper disposal of fetal remains. We conclude that it is, even if it is not perfectly tailored to that end.”

The court said it was taking no position on “whether Indiana may prohibit the knowing provision of sex-, race-, and disability selective abortions by abortion providers.” It said that since the 7th Circuit is the only appeals court to have considered the issue, “we follow our ordinary practice of denying petitions insofar as they raise legal issues that have not been considered by additional courts of appeals.”

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 10:00 am Forget chipping away. They're going to overturn RvW as soon as possible. At least that's the promise. And it makes all the Republican bullshit disappear for the faithful. Trump 2020: It's All About the SCOTUS, Baby!

The funny thing is they're claiming it's just about to punting it to the States but try to do that with The Second or drugs? No way.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 10:11 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 10:00 am Forget chipping away. They're going to overturn RvW as soon as possible. At least that's the promise. And it makes all the Republican bullshit disappear for the faithful. Trump 2020: It's All About the SCOTUS, Baby!

The funny thing is they're claiming it's just about to punting it to the States but try to do that with The Second or drugs? No way.

I remember back in 2004 my Con Law professor basically argued that Roe was essentially already dead letter, and I've mostly come around to that view. The SCOTUS has signed off on so many abortion restrictions that are transparently about reducing abortion access to the maximum extent possible that abortion is already 80% - 90% de facto illegal / inaccessible in most states where abortion bans would be passed without Roe anyway.

In some ways I wonder whether we might wind up in a better place for abortion rights in 10 - 20 years if Roe gets formally overturned this year or next year. Red state legislatures would actually have to face the music on draconian abortion restrictions like in Alabama and Georgia, and I think it would energize pro-choice voters more than pro-life voters.

A popular women’s health and fertility app sows doubt about birth control, features claims from medical advisers who are not licensed to practice in the US, and is funded and led by anti-abortion, anti-gay Catholic campaigners, a Guardian investigation has found.

The Femm app, which collects personal information about sex and menstruation from users, has been downloaded more than 400,000 times since its launch in 2015, according to developers. It has users in the US, the EU, Africa and Latin America, its operating company claims.

Two of the app’s medical advisers are not licensed to practice in the US and are also closely tied to a Catholic university in Santiago, Chile, where access to abortion remains severely restricted.

Femm receives much of its income from private donors including the Chiaroscuro Foundation, a charity backed almost exclusively by Sean Fieler, a wealthy Catholic hedge-funder based in New York.
...
The Femm app’s literature sows doubt about the safety and efficacy of hormonal birth control, asserting that it may be deleterious to a woman’s health and that a safer, “natural” way for women to avoid pregnancy is to learn their cycles.
...
Part of the Femm app encourages women to visit its own network of physicians for hormone tests, which it claims can diagnose “underlying” medical disorders. In an interview with the Guardian, Rerko declined to comment on whether she opposes birth control or abortion.
...
Fertility awareness birth control methods, such as that promoted by Femm, are considered the least effective, resulting in roughly 24 pregnancies for every 100 women using the method a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Implantable devices are considered the most effective, resulting in one pregnancy for every 2,000 women a year.
...
Anna Halpine, CEO of the Femm Foundation, said the ideology of the group and its funders is irrelevant because the Femm app is “not dealing with the question of abortion in the work and the research and training we offer”.

“Femm has never commented on the abortion issue. And doesn’t work in that area. Femm is an organization committed to expanding information research and knowledge about women’s reproductive health around the world,” said Halpine.

The Reproductive Health Research Institute (RHRI) provides Femm’s medical assertions, research and training. The two physicians leading RHRI are listed on its website as Pilar Vigil and Patricio Contreras. Vigil is listed as the medical director of RHRI, which has two addresses, one in New York City and another in Santiago, Chile.

Vigil is listed as an OB-GYN and Contreras as a “medical doctor”, but neither is licensed to practice medicine in the United States. Vigil’s biography lists her postdoctoral studies at the Texas Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Endocrinology. That institute closed in 2016, and said on its website it is “not processing any more requests for records”.

When asked whether the medical advisers to the Femm app are licensed to practice medicine in New York or the United States, Halpine said: “No.” She added the advisers are primarily in Chile.

The institute is registered at the same New York City address as the Femm Foundation and another anti-abortion organization called World Youth Alliance. When the Guardian tried to call RHRI, a receptionist answered the phone as the World Youth Alliance.

WarnerMedia has issued a statement saying it will reconsider Georgia as a filming site should the newly signed abortion law go into effect, joining Netflix and Disney in taking a stance on the issue.
...
Netflix was the first Hollywood player to issue a statement on the issue, with Netflix’s chief content officer Ted Sarandos telling Variety exclusively in a statement that the company would work with the ACLU and others to fight the legislation in court.
...
Disney chief Bob Iger then told Reuters on Wednesday that the company, which now comprises 20th Century Fox as well, would likely abandon Georgia as a production site should the law remain in place. He said it would be “very difficult” to remain.

WarnerMedia, which includes HBO, Turner, and Warner Bros. among its subsidiaries, currently has a few productions in the state, including HBO’s “The Outsider” and “Lovecraft Country,” and Warner Bros. film “The Conjuring 3.”

A judge has delayed the fate of Missouri’s last abortion clinic, ruling Friday that it may temporarily continue to offer the procedure.

Missouri Circuit Judge Michael Stelzer’s decision prevents the state — for now — from becoming the only one in the country without access to abortion services.

Stelzer granted Planned Parenthood’s request for a temporary restraining order, meaning that the license of Missouri’s last clinic will not expire at midnight. Stelzer emphasized that the matter is not settled; arguments will be heard in court on Tuesday morning.
...
Even before the judge granted the request for a stay on Friday, which came in response to a Planned Parenthood lawsuit, the state already had imposed more restrictive policies than most: Last week, Parson (R) signed into law a measure that bans abortions after eight weeks of pregnancy and provides no exceptions for victims of rape or incest.
...
Existing laws, such as ones that force women to undergo counseling and then wait 72 hours before they can get an abortion, made it difficult for poor patients and rural residents to access services. And a requirement that doctors have partnerships with local hospitals limited the number of physicians who could perform the procedure.

It was these regulations that caused the St. Louis clinic its greatest troubles.
...
If the St. Louis center stops providing abortions, Missouri women would have to cross state lines. The nearest facilities are in Granite City, Ill., just across the Mississippi River, and in Kansas, more than 250 miles to the west of St. Louis.