Octopus Overlords

Defiant wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2023 6:55 pm Who could have possibly forseen this?

States geographically near ones that banned abortion after Roe v. Wade was overturned saw sharp increases in the number of procedures performed, likely due to an influx of border-hopping patients, according to a new analysis from the Guttmacher Institute.

https://www.axios.com/2023/09/07/aborti ... state-bans

Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2023 7:10 pm

Defiant wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2023 6:55 pm Who could have possibly forseen this?

States geographically near ones that banned abortion after Roe v. Wade was overturned saw sharp increases in the number of procedures performed, likely due to an influx of border-hopping patients, according to a new analysis from the Guttmacher Institute.

https://www.axios.com/2023/09/07/aborti ... state-bans

The Globe reported this morning that "abortion tourism" in Mass. jumped 30-some percent, but if you kept reading you learned that that only amounted to 11 "extra" abortions per month. We don't actually border any Gilead states so the spillover isn't dramatic here.

waitingtoconnect wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2023 9:51 pm You’d have to think Griswald 1965 is next. Federal contraception ban has to be on the cards for the Gileadians.

Republican strategists are exploring a shift away from “pro-life” messaging on abortion after consistent Election Day losses for the GOP when reproductive rights were on the ballot.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:18 am It's a reference to Griswold which was the case where SCOTUS said that the government couldn't ban the use of contraceptives.

Defiant wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 8:38 pm

Republican strategists are exploring a shift away from “pro-life” messaging on abortion after consistent Election Day losses for the GOP when reproductive rights were on the ballot.

Republicans are trying to find a new term for ‘pro-life’ to stave off more electoral losses

“What intrigued me the most about the results was that ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’ means something different now, that people see being pro-life as being against all abortions ... at all levels,” Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said in an interview Thursday.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2023 8:48 am I wish we could get "forced breeding" to catch on.

In the year after the Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to abortion, something unexpected happened: The total number of legal abortions in the United States did not fall. Instead, it appeared to increase slightly, by about 0.2 percent, according to the first full-year count of abortions provided nationwide.

This finding came despite the fact that 14 states banned all abortions, and seven imposed new limits on them. Even as those restrictions reduced the legal abortion rate to near zero in some states, there were large increases in places where abortions remained legal. Researchers said they were driven by the expansion of telemedicine for mail-order abortion pills, increased options and assistance for women who traveled, and a surge of publicity about ways to get abortions.

The response by abortion providers and activists to the end of Roe v. Wade, it seems, has resulted in more access to abortion in states where it’s still legal — not just for women traveling from states with bans but also for women living there.
...
In the 12 months after the Dobbs decision in June 2022, there were on average 82,298 abortions a month, compared with 82,115 in the two months before Dobbs, WeCount found. The group, part of the Society of Family Planning, which supports abortion rights, collects monthly numbers from providers across the country. The new data, released Tuesday, included 83 percent of known providers, and researchers estimated the remainder based on historical trends and abortion data from states.

Another estimate of abortions by the Guttmacher Institute, using a smaller sample of providers and for a shorter period, also found that abortion was most likely increasing nationwide.

“Foreign billionaires don't get to make Ohio laws,” said Jennifer Gross (R-West Chester), pointing to millions from billionaires outside America that helped fund Issue 1. Gross added, “This is foreign election interference, and it will not stand.”

“Issue 1 doesn't repeal a single Ohio law, in fact, it doesn't even mention one,” said Representative Bill Dean (R-Xenia). “The amendment’s language is dangerously vague and unconstrained, and can be weaponized to attack parental rights or defend rapists, pedophiles, and human traffickers.”

Melanie Miller (R-Ashland) said, “We will continue to be a voice for every child in their mother's womb who cannot speak for themselves.”

Representative Beth Lear (R-Galena) stated, “No amendment can overturn the God given rights with which we were born.”

To prevent mischief by pro-abortion courts with Issue 1, Ohio legislators will consider removing jurisdiction from the judiciary over this ambiguous ballot initiative. The Ohio legislature alone will consider what, if any, modifications to make to existing laws based on public hearings and input from legal experts on both sides.

To prevent mischief by pro-abortion courts ... input from legal experts on both sides.

A group of Republicans from both the state House and Senate have announced plans to introduce a bill that would ban almost all abortions after just 15 days gestation.

The bill is effectively a total ban on abortion. The absolute earliest a woman can confirm she is pregnant is with a blood test 10 days after ovulation. But this proposed law does not ban abortion 15 days after ovulation — it bans abortion at 15 days gestation, counted from the first day of a woman’s last menstrual cycle… which means it would ban abortion before some woman have even had conceived. The only proposed exception to the law is for a medical emergency.

If passed, it would be among the most restrictive in the country.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 4:02 pm I legitimately don't understand what they're trying to accomplish with this:

A group of Republicans from both the state House and Senate have announced plans to introduce a bill that would ban almost all abortions after just 15 days gestation.

The bill is effectively a total ban on abortion. The absolute earliest a woman can confirm she is pregnant is with a blood test 10 days after ovulation. But this proposed law does not ban abortion 15 days after ovulation — it bans abortion at 15 days gestation, counted from the first day of a woman’s last menstrual cycle… which means it would ban abortion before some woman have even had conceived. The only proposed exception to the law is for a medical emergency.

If passed, it would be among the most restrictive in the country.

Is it some wacky way to test what the courts will allow?

Also, New Hampshire? Really?

The memo goes on to say, a business registration can be revoked if the business is a public nuisance, where there are frequent arrests, excessive noise or disorderly conduct.

According to the county's ordinances on business registration: "No person shall be engaged in or carry on any business unless the business is properly registered with the county."

The Greenville Co. Sheriff's Office reported they have responded to more than 300 calls to clinic and made 21 arrests in the last three years. Officials said most calls were for disputes between people.

"If a business is being protested by people who don't agree with what is happening inside the business, that means the business should no longer operate. It just seems fundamentally unfair," Parker said, "If I decide to go to Chick-Fil-A and protest outside of Chick-Fil-A and get the police called to Chick-Fil-A because I don't agree with their employment policy or the way they cook their chicken, no one is going to ask Chick-Fil-A to close their doors."

Unagi wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 7:21 pm Yeah, that's totally fucked logic and it shouldn't have a leg to stand on.

For the first time in at least 50 years, a judge has intervened to allow an adult woman to terminate her pregnancy.

When Travis County District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble handed down the temporary restraining order Thursday, Kate Cox, 31, of Dallas burst into tears. Cox and her husband desperately wanted to have this baby, but her doctors said continuing the nonviable pregnancy posed a risk to her health and future fertility, according to a historic lawsuit filed Tuesday.

The Texas Office of the Attorney General, which challenged Cox’s claims at Thursday’s hearing, may try to ask a higher court to intervene.

“The idea that Ms. Cox wants desperately to be a parent, and this law might actually cause her to lose that ability is shocking and would be a genuine miscarriage of justice,” Gamble said.

At 20 weeks pregnant, Cox learned her fetus had full trisomy 18, a chromosomal abnormality that is almost always fatal before birth or soon after.
...
The state cannot directly appeal Thursday’s order, since it is a temporary restraining order. Instead, the Office of the Attorney General would have to file a writ of mandamus petition, asking a higher court to take the extraordinary measure of overturning the emergency order.

In October, the Texas Tribune documented the experiences of an East Texas woman who was forced to carry a nonviable pregnancy to term. Her twin sons, born conjoined with severe malformations, died just hours after they were born.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 4:54 pm As god intended.

Texas Right to Life, an anti-abortion advocacy group, condemned the lawsuit as a gateway to allowing abortions for any reason in Texas.

“Every child is uniquely precious and should continue to be protected in law no matter how long or short the baby’s life may be,” the group said in a statement. “The compassionate approach to these heartbreaking diagnoses is perinatal palliative care, which honors, rather than ends, the child’s life.”

Alefroth wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 4:56 pm Satire is dead.

AUSTIN – The Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) granted by the Travis County district judge purporting to allow an abortion to proceed will not insulate hospitals, doctors, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas’ abortion laws. This includes first degree felony prosecutions, Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.004, and civil penalties of not less than $100,000 for each violation, Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 170A.005, 171.207-211. And, while the TRO purports to temporarily enjoin actions brought by the OAG and TMB against Dr. Karsan and her staff, it does not enjoin actions brought by private citizens. Tex. Health & Safety Code § ¬¬171.207. Nor does it prohibit a district or county attorney from enforcing Texas’ pre-Roe abortion laws against Dr. Karsan or anyone else. The TRO will expire long before the statute of limitations for violating Texas’ abortion laws expires.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 5:04 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 4:56 pm Satire is dead.

Nah, it's just more difficult.

Paxton’s office petitioned the high court just before midnight Thursday
...
In the petition, Paxton asked the Texas Supreme Court to rule quickly, saying that “each hour [the temporary restraining order] remains in place is an hour that Plaintiffs believe themselves free to perform and procure an elective abortion.”

“Nothing can restore the unborn child’s life that will be lost as a result,” the filing said. “Post hoc enforcement is no substitute, so time is of the essence.”

The Texas Supreme Court is currently also considering a similar case, Zurawski v. Texas, in which 20 women claim they were denied medically necessary abortions for their complicated pregnancies due to the state’s new laws. The state has argued those women do not have standing to sue because, unlike Cox, they are not currently seeking abortions.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 3:46 pm Judge says Texas woman may abort fetus with lethal abnormality

BREAKING: Late tonight, the Texas Supreme Court temporarily halted a lower court ruling that would have allowed Kate Cox, our plaintiff with severe pregnancy complications, to have an abortion to protect her health and future fertility.

The Court said they will weigh in on the matter and stayed the lower court ruling until they have more time to consider the case.

“While we still hope that the Court ultimately rejects the state’s request and does so quickly, in this case we fear that justice delayed will be justice denied.” -Molly Duane, senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights

“We are talking about urgent medical care. Kate is already 20 weeks pregnant. This is why people should not need to beg for healthcare in a court of law.” -Molly Duane, senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights

Yesterday, a state court ruled in Kate's favor, but within hours, TX AG Ken Paxton asked the TX Supreme Court to block the order & stop Kate from having an abortion. Paxton also issued a letter threatening to prosecute any doctor who gave Kate an abortion, despite the court order