Octopus Overlords

NEW

The Supreme Court has set a date for oral arguments in the Mississippi abortion case: December 1, 2021.

The case directly asks the court to overturn Roe v Wade.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:30 pm My prediction for the Mississippi case is this:

70% chance that says "we're going to uphold this ban and 99% of any abortion bans, but we're going to pretend that we're not overruling Roe."

25% chance they do formally overrule Roe.

5% chance that the opinion is not terrible.

It centers on a 2018 law in Mississippi that bans most abortions after 15 weeks, a cutoff that is significantly earlier than the general fetal viability standard of around 22 weeks.

The law was blocked by a lower court, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the law directly contradicts the precedent of another pivotal abortion ruling, 1992′s Casey v. Planned Parenthood. That decision permitted states to enact pre-viability abortion restrictions that did not create an undue burden on a woman’s access to an abortion.

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:29 pm I'm at 95% that they uphold the ban and pretend they aren't overturning Roe. 5% they overturn Roe. I think the opinion quality is a non-overlap and set it at 1%. That assumes that Roberts joins them and take the opinion writing on for himself in a vain attempt to try limit the damage to the court.

A lawsuit that could test the constitutionality of the nation’s most restrictive abortion ban was filed in Texas on Monday against a doctor who admitted to performing an abortion considered illegal under the new law.

The details of the civil suit against Alan Braid, a physician in San Antonio, are as unusual as the law itself, which empowers private citizens to enforce the ban on abortion once cardiac activity has been detected — often as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

The plaintiff is a felon serving a federal sentence at home in Arkansas, with no connection to the abortion at issue. He said he filed the claim not because of strongly held views about reproductive rights but in part because of the $10,000 he could receive if the lawsuit is successful. A second suit filed Monday — just four paragraphs long — came from a man in Chicago who asked a state court to strike down the abortion law as invalid.

Since the Texas ban took effect Sept. 1, advocates on both sides of the abortion debate have been anticipating such lawsuits, though perhaps not from a “disbarred and disgraced former Arkansas lawyer,” as Oscar Stilley described himself in his complaint.
...
In Texas, Braid stepped forward last week to say that he had performed an abortion for a woman who was in the early stages of a pregnancy but beyond the state’s new limit. Despite the legal risks, Braid said in a Washington Post column that he acted because of his duty as a doctor and “because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.”

Stilley, the Arkansas man, said he decided to sue after reading a news report about Braid’s declaration. A former lawyer convicted of tax fraud in 2010 and sentenced to 15 years, Stilley said in an interview that he is not personally opposed to abortion but thinks the measure should be subject to judicial review.
...
Texas Right to Life, an antiabortion group, quickly disavowed the lawsuits as “self-serving legal stunts.”

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:50 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:29 pm I'm at 95% that they uphold the ban and pretend they aren't overturning Roe. 5% they overturn Roe. I think the opinion quality is a non-overlap and set it at 1%. That assumes that Roberts joins them and take the opinion writing on for himself in a vain attempt to try limit the damage to the court.

We're at endgame now; I don't think they're going to half-measure their way though this given how long they took to finally get all these puzzle pieces into alignment. Regardless, whatever the outcome is, it will be bad for women's health. The general feeling among my public health peers is that this will be a full-on overturning of Roe v. Wade.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:17 pmSo sort of like with the ACA, the GOP elite is stuck with a base that wants them to do a lot of unpopular things that they have to pretend that they also want. Which probably won't last forever, but which they'll try to keep going as long as they can.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:17 pm So sort of like with the ACA, the GOP elite is stuck with a base that wants them to do a lot of unpopular things that they have to pretend that they also want. Which probably won't last forever, but which they'll try to keep going as long as they can.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 10:14 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 9:34 pm Isn’t abortion illegal all throughout Indonesia? Do you folks have people protesting that? Or is it just accepted by the majority that a woman’s right to choose is not allowed?

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:41 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:17 pm So sort of like with the ACA, the GOP elite is stuck with a base that wants them to do a lot of unpopular things that they have to pretend that they also want. Which probably won't last forever, but which they'll try to keep going as long as they can.

I don't disagree with your observation, but I think you might also not be considering the symbolic meaning it would have to be able to brag about overturning Roe v. Wade. And yes, I'm aware they already use it to raise money and motivate voters so the question is will it be worth just as much (political and financial capital) to have it officially overturned?

As Democrats consider legislation to respond to a new Texas state ban on abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy, they have lost the support of one of the few remaining Republicans who support abortion rights.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Tuesday she opposes the Democrats’ bill, which would prohibit states from enacting restrictions on abortion through fetal viability.

The House is expected to approve the bill Friday. In the Senate, Democratic leaders are considering whether to bring it to a vote.

Democrats, led by bill author Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, say their legislation would “codify” the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

But in a brief interview, Collins said the bill goes further than that by interfering with existing law that ensures health professionals who object to abortion are not required to participate in it.

“I support codifying Roe. Unfortunately the bill … goes way beyond that. It would severely weaken the conscious exceptions that are in the current law,” Collins said, adding that she found parts of the bill’s language “extreme.”

Collins said the bill would weaken the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which protects a person’s ability to exercise their religion. She cited the past support for the act by Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and President Biden, when he was in the Senate.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:50 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:29 pm I'm at 95% that they uphold the ban and pretend they aren't overturning Roe. 5% they overturn Roe. I think the opinion quality is a non-overlap and set it at 1%. That assumes that Roberts joins them and take the opinion writing on for himself in a vain attempt to try limit the damage to the court.

We're at endgame now; I don't think they're going to half-measure their way though this given how long they took to finally get all these puzzle pieces into alignment. Regardless, whatever the outcome is, it will be bad for women's health. The general feeling among my public health peers is that this will be a full-on overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:23 pm Susan Collins chimes in:

As Democrats consider legislation to respond to a new Texas state ban on abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy, they have lost the support of one of the few remaining Republicans who support abortion rights.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Tuesday she opposes the Democrats’ bill, which would prohibit states from enacting restrictions on abortion through fetal viability.

The House is expected to approve the bill Friday. In the Senate, Democratic leaders are considering whether to bring it to a vote.

Democrats, led by bill author Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, say their legislation would “codify” the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

But in a brief interview, Collins said the bill goes further than that by interfering with existing law that ensures health professionals who object to abortion are not required to participate in it.

“I support codifying Roe. Unfortunately the bill … goes way beyond that. It would severely weaken the conscious exceptions that are in the current law,” Collins said, adding that she found parts of the bill’s language “extreme.”

Collins said the bill would weaken the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which protects a person’s ability to exercise their religion. She cited the past support for the act by Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and President Biden, when he was in the Senate.

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to a request from abortion-rights advocates and providers to quickly consider taking up their challenge of a restrictive Texas law that bans most abortions after as early as six weeks of pregnancy.

The petitioners last month had submitted the unusual request for the Supreme Court to hear the case before final judgment in lower courts.

If the court agrees to consider the case on an expedited basis, it could accept briefs, hear arguments and deliver a ruling much faster than if the case had to wind through the normal court channels. Though the case is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, arguments would not be held until December at the earliest, the petitioners said.

The high court directed the respondents in the case to file a response by noon on Thursday. That’s the same time Texas is due to file its reply in a separate challenge of the law, which the Department of Justice brought to the Supreme Court earlier Monday.

Sen. Susan Collins, the moderate Republican from Maine, favors passing legislation to enshrine the protections of Roe v. Wade into law, her office said Wednesday.

"Senator Collins supports the right to an abortion and believes that the protections in the Roe and Casey decisions should be passed into law. She has had some conversations with her colleagues about this and is open to further discussions," Collins spokeswoman Annie Clark told NBC News in an email.

JCC wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:42 pm I found this to be pretty interesting. The synposis is most Americans don't care that much about abortion and fall somewhere in the middle of the issue. (Abortion should be equal in most or some cases.) A total ban is pretty unpopular.

What Americans Really Think About Abortion

12 states have trigger laws which will automatically make abortion illegal if The supreme court overturns roe

Kraken wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:47 pm At least overturning Roe should whip up Democrats, whose enthusiasm keeps fading while the reconciliation drama drags on. Unless something dramatic changes, they aren't going to stampede to the midterm polls.

A judge in Texas ruled on Thursday that a law prohibiting abortions after about six weeks violated the state's constitution because it allows private citizens to sue abortion providers.

State District Court Judge David Peeples was ruling on a contentious Texas law that bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat has been detected, usually after about six weeks and when many women do not yet realize they are pregnant.

Abortion providers signaled that despite the ruling, they are unlikely to resume the procedure until an expected ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The US Food and Drug Administration announced Thursday that it is lifting a requirement that patients seeking medication abortion had to pick up the medication in-person, instead allowing pills to be sent by mail.
...
Relaxing the federal restrictions on medication abortion is one thing that the Biden administration could do to mitigate the fallout from a Roe v. Wade reversal, but red states are already on the march to counteract what the federal government has opted to do.
...
While the FDA is permanently ending the in-person pick-up requirement for the pills, it is retaining other regulations that reproductive rights advocates had argued should be lifted.

The FDA is keeping a requirement that abortion patients sign an additional form for a medication abortion. It is also continuing to require that clinicians pre-register with a manufacturer of the drug before they can prescribe it.

Texas’ Supreme Court appeared to slam the door Friday on a federal lawsuit abortion providers in the state have pursued for months in a bid to have the state’s unusual privately-enforced abortion ban declared unconstitutional.

The unanimous ruling from Texas’ highest court cuts off, for now, abortion rights advocates’ ability to use federal courts to halt enforcement of the law that went into effect in September and allows private citizens to sue abortion providers and anyone who helps a patient access the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy.

The Texas Supreme Court decision, however, does not foreclose other legal maneuvers abortion providers are using to challenge the law, like state-court suits against anti-abortion activists and groups considered likely to try to wield the statute to discourage abortions.

Like the Texas ban, the Idaho law relies on private citizens, not the state, to enforce it through the threat of ruinous financial penalties. When the Idaho law takes effect in 30 days, anyone who performs an abortion after the detection of fetal cardiac activity can be sued for at least $20,000 by “the father of the preborn child, a grandparent of the preborn child, a sibling of the preborn child, or an aunt or uncle of the preborn child.”

Each one of those members of the patient’s family (and the patient herself) will be able to collect a minimum of $20,000, plus legal fees, from the medical professional who terminates a pregnancy. The threat of such lawsuits will be severe enough to end legal abortion in Idaho after six weeks of pregnancy, as the broader Texas law—which allows any civilian to sue any person who “aids or abets” an abortion—has done since it took effect in September.