America’s Abortion Rate Has Dropped to Its Lowest Ever

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

33 minutes ago, Shiran said:

Yes, it is one of the problems of living in high density cities where people have to congregate and interact with each other. The issue with gun doesn't come from individual B having a bit of an arsenal on their private property that they use for .... whatever .. gun range, maybe some hunting, blowing watermelons, regardless. It is all good fun. The issues arises when guns become so common and prevalent they start affecting society as a whole, including people who made their own personal choice of nothing to do with guns at all. If every gun owner and seller were perfectly responsible, there would be no need for government interference, unfortunately, due to choices made, this is far from being the case. So now you have a need of jumpy, heavily armed, and questionable trained police force, with their own unaddressed psychological hang ups and preconceptions that lead to things like 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67TFsWLyd5I&t=42s

(warning: disturbing video)  
Technological solutions might be possible in the future with biometrically locked guns, in the mean time, much like with cigarettes, the society is getting to the point of enough is enough, which leads to business making a decision to curb gun and ammo sales, or put restrictions regardless of the local laws. 

Honduras bans gun ownership.  Switzerland encourages gun ownership.  Both have slightly over 8 million residents.  Honduras has over 29 gun homicides per 100k residents.  Switzerland has 0.15 per 100k.  

 

Honduras is basically a gun-free zone, yet has 193 times more gun homicides than a similarly-populated country which encourages gun ownership.

[Boris Farage 353]

3 hours ago, Shiran said:

The alternative is putting trust into Gileadic despotic government that "always knows best" Having facility to make choices doesn't say anything about those choices having to be right or correct either in short or long term. Even in society where unwanted child can be easily and trouble-free adopted upon birth with no financial burden being passed on to either of the bio-parents, three is still gestation toll that has to be paid solely by the physical body and brain of the child bearer. If they are unable or unwilling to pay it, a law forcing them always be subverted, often in unsafe ways. Until some point, presumably far into the future, when embryos can be safely extracted and gestate in vitro, that is not changing. 

The alternative is not to have it at all, except in the most extreme cases. Otherwise it's just birth control by murder.

[NikLR 13,227]

17 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I always get a kick out of posters spend the energy to reply to my brilliance of analysis to tell me they dont care about what I said. Its kind of tingly like flirting 

Woo!

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

8 hours ago, laylalex said:

That's simply not true. While I am safe in California, what if I were to move to Alabama? Or Indiana? Not that I would, but if politicians get their way there, I'd have no way to access abortion care without having to travel. Of course, I have more options than most because of my socioeconomic status. I *can* travel and stay for as long as I need to obtain what is a SAFE procedure. Poor women can't. I'm not just thinking of myself.

Not having quick easy access to an abortion,  reallly occupies that much of your routines and planing? I mean i am pro choice within reason, but you almost make it sound like you are diabetic and they are trying to take your meds. 

 

Of course I feel the same way about my choice to have a semi automatic 5.56 rifle with black plastic grips in my safe.

 

I bet my choice has less of a chance of stoping a beating heart than yours.

[laylalex 7,285]

16 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

 

I bet my choice has less of a chance of stoping a beating heart than yours.

A bit melodramatic, don't you think? I take your point which I don't think is a bad one -- having your constitutional rights tampered with gets you worried, huh? Makes you want to plan ahead for unforeseen problems?

 

Okay I am being ordered off VJ to start preparing dinner for the patriarchy who is grumpy that he missed his chance for another donut. Also I need to stop talking about my delicious strawberry donut if I know what's good for me.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

14 minutes ago, laylalex said:

A bit melodramatic, don't you think? I take your point which I don't think is a bad one -- having your constitutional rights tampered with gets you worried, huh? Makes you want to plan ahead for unforeseen problems?

 

Okay I am being ordered off VJ to start preparing dinner for the patriarchy who is grumpy that he missed his chance for another donut. Also I need to stop talking about my delicious strawberry donut if I know what's good for me.

Yes a bit melodramatic.. well you let your man order you around, so you cant be all bad 

 

Once again I am pro choice reluctantly up to the point of a viable fetus. Although there is no second amendment clearly enumerating your right to abortion, like there is for guns. 

 

I am also pro the right to burn the flag if you wish to do so (on your own time), but dont cry when society turns it back on you. I am not pro the right, to protest while working for someone else like Kapernickel or whatever his name is.

[laylalex 7,285]

16 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Once again I am pro choice reluctantly up to the point of a viable fetus. Although there is no second amendment clearly enumerating your right to abortion, like there is for guns. 

 

I am also pro the right to burn the flag if you wish to do so (on your own time), but dont cry when society turns it back on you. I am not pro the right, to protest while working for someone else like Kapernickel or whatever his name is.

Actually, there IS an amendment in the Bill of Rights that covers abortion -- it's the Fourteenth one. From what I recall from my clinic escort training, the right to a private life protects a woman's right to direct her own medical care. 

 

Also, I agree with you that people should not expect there not to be repercussions when they have made unpopular speech. It works both ways.

 

16 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Yes a bit melodramatic.. well you let your man order you around, so you cant be all bad 

Welllll, I like to let him think he's the boss.  And it is funny when I'm wearing my "Smash the Imperialist Capitalist Hetero Patriarchy" T-shirt while we're out grocery shopping or whatever, and he addresses me as "Woman," as in "Woman, know your place and get me some of that ham so you can make me a sandwich." (Believe me, he has gotten some very dark glares at the Whole Foods for lines like that, especially when it's accompanies with a "love tap" on the behind.) He's only been in the US for 2 years and he is already very familiar with the "make me a sandwich" trope, unfortunately. 

[Boris Farage 353]

7 hours ago, laylalex said:

Actually, there IS an amendment in the Bill of Rights that covers abortion -- it's the Fourteenth one. From what I recall from my clinic escort training, the right to a private life protects a woman's right to direct her own medical care.

"Equal protection under the law" is what protects your right to an abortion? That's a laugh. Where is the "equal protection under the law" for the child you're murdering?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

"Equal protection under the law" is what protects your right to an abortion? That's a laugh. Where is the "equal protection under the law" for the child you're murdering?

 

   See page 1 for reference. There is equal protection. It is illegal to murder a child. 

[Boris Farage 353]

12 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   See page 1 for reference. There is equal protection. It is illegal to murder a child. 

And yet we allow it as a form of birth control.

[laylalex 7,285]

36 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

"Equal protection under the law" is what protects your right to an abortion? That's a laugh. Where is the "equal protection under the law" for the child you're murdering?

Well, what I know from my training (such as it was) and from talking to my dad (who is an attorney but not a civil rights attorney) is that the equal protection only extends to those who are, you know, alive and able to benefit from protection. 

[Boris Farage 353]

Just now, laylalex said:

Well, what I know from my training (such as it was) and from talking to my dad (who is an attorney but not a civil rights attorney) is that the equal protection only extends to those who are, you know, alive and able to benefit from protection. 

Yes, I know it's a known liberal talking point. It's not alive until after its last toe leaves its mother's #######, and of course even then there are probably exceptions. There are easier forms of birth control.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

32 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

Yes, I know it's a known liberal talking point. It's not alive until after its last toe leaves its mother's #######, and of course even then there are probably exceptions. There are easier forms of birth control.

 

  The fetus is alive and does have rights. That does not mean the fetus is a child. A child legally has the same constitutional rights as an adult. In the USA, thirty eight states recognize the personhood of a fetus, but the fetus does not have the same constitutional rights as a person. The constitution of the United States also does not allow the rights of the fetus to supersede the rights of a pregnant woman until the gestational age at which the fetus is considered viable and can survive outside the womb. Attempts at amending the constitution have not passed to date. That is the current law of this country. 

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

4 hours ago, Boris Farage said:

"Equal protection under the law" is what protects your right to an abortion? That's a laugh. Where is the "equal protection under the law" for the child you're murdering?

 

4 hours ago, laylalex said:

Well, what I know from my training (such as it was) and from talking to my dad (who is an attorney but not a civil rights attorney) is that the equal protection only extends to those who are, you know, alive and able to benefit from protection. 

 

3 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  The fetus is alive and does have rights. That does not mean the fetus is a child. A child legally has the same constitutional rights as an adult. In the USA, thirty eight states recognize the personhood of a fetus, but the fetus does not have the same constitutional rights as a person. The constitution of the United States also does not allow the rights of the fetus to supersede the rights of a pregnant woman until the gestational age at which the fetus is considered viable and can survive outside the womb. Attempts at amending the constitution have not passed to date. That is the current law of this country. 

Very, very brief 14th Amendment refresher as I am tired and it is late here, but the bat signal was raised so here I am. I admit fully to going to my lecture notes for this.

 

So we all know (or should know) that the 14th Amendment's due process clause prevents the government from depriving a person of their life, liberty or property interests without due process, which is almost always (not getting into that, v late) the provision of notice and an opportunity to be heard. Cool, cool. Abortion is not a "life" interest but rather a "liberty" interest -- it falls under the purview of the right of privacy, which includes the right to a private family life. Griswold is for the proposition that the government can't stop people from using contraception (dear @Boris Farage, I am not classifying abortion as contraception here, to be clear) because it is a governmental intrusion to private family life. Copy/paste from notes on Griswold here:

 

Quote

A “right of privacy” protecting the intimate relations of married couples is implied in the Bill of Rights. For example, the First Amendment protects the right to association. The Third Amendment prohibits the quartering of soldiers in a person’s house without their consent. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination. The Ninth Amendment provides that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The protected activities in each of these Amendments are “penumbras” that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but instead represent various “zones of privacy” into which the government cannot intrude.

And in the majority opinion in Griswold, contraception fell into one of these zones of privacy which aren't specifically enumerated, but exists instead in a penumbra of the Fourteenth. 

 

Griswold is in many ways the opening of the door to Roe, which is where we get the law that a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy within certain limits (as expanded and contracted by the line of cases that follow Roe) lies in the penumbra of the Fourteenth, too. More copy-paste from old notes, these on Roe (apologies for Wall of Text):

 

Quote

Historically, women have had a greater right to terminate their pregnancies than they currently enjoy. There are three reasons for the gradual increase in strictness in anti-abortion laws. Firstly, decreasing the availability of abortion is seen as a way to decrease illicit sexual activity. Secondly, concerns over the safety of abortion procedures prompted a decrease in its prevalence to protect the health of women. Finally, states increasingly note their own interest or duty in protecting prenatal life. The Court must analyze the right of women to obtain abortions against the backdrop of these countervailing state interests.

 

The Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to personal privacy, but such a right is implied from various aspects of the Bill of Rights. The “zone of privacy” implied in the Constitution is broad enough to encompass a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. However, this holding is qualified by noting that the right is not unlimited and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. Regulation limiting a “fundamental right” of privacy must be justified by a compelling state interest, and legislative enactments must be narrowly tailored to further that interest.

 

Applying this test to the abortion issue, a woman’s privacy interest outweighs any countervailing state interests during the first part of her pregnancy when abortion is deemed relatively safe and when the fetus is very early in its development. However, at some point in the pregnancy, the potential dangers to the mother of a later abortion and the increased development of the fetus as a potential person outweigh the right of the mother to privacy. Thus, state interests grow in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a certain point during pregnancy, became compelling enough to override her general right to privacy. With respect to the state’s interest in protecting the health of the mother, the interest becomes compelling at approximately the end of the first trimester (first three months of pregnancy), when performance of an abortion becomes increasingly risky. A state’s interest in protecting potential life becomes compelling at viability, or whenever the fetus is capable of a meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. A state can prohibit abortion after viability, except when it is necessary to protect the life of the mother.

So there's the rub -- the relevant burden for the state is to show they have a compelling state interest in the fetus remaining in the womb, and viability (a squishy term) is the artificial marker drawn here by law. We have any number of artificial age markers at play in the government for different reasons -- 16, 18, 21, 35, 65 are but a few. And for abortion, that's "viability." Fine. So if we imagine a graph on an X-Y axis, with the fetus age on the X axis, and state interest on the Y axis, you see the interest increasing along with the age. At four weeks, it's negligible. At 12 weeks, it is greater, but it is still not compelling. It is only when you get to the magical viability moment that the scale tips to being compelling, after which point the woman ceases to have a privacy right to exercise. 

 

None of this is in the text of the Constitution, but it is within the penumbra of the Fourteenth, because abortion falls within the fundamental right of privacy. This is also a very good place for me to repeat my refrain that there exists that in the world which is legal, and that which is moral, and these concepts do not always intersect. Whether your morality prohibits you from believing that abortion is a right that should be extended at all, or if you believe it should be available only in very limited circumstances, that is okay. It is fine by me, you do you, boo. But Roe is still good law, and is the bedrock on which the line of abortion cases rests, and it says that this is a fundamental right that can be taken away only where there is a compelling state interest, and where the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim. 

 

Am I worried about abortion rights being fully curtailed in this country? Sure. I worry about a lot of stuff, way too much for a maven of such small brain. But even with the composition of this SCOTUS, I do not believe that we will see the right to an abortion removed in my lifetime (and I am not an old coot, just yet). It is exceedingly rare for a fundamental right to be taken away from people. Perhaps the right to own slaves in slaveowning states is the only thing I can think of, and that was by Constitutional Amendment. The likelihood of a new amendment passing to prohibit abortion in this country is extremely low. Frankly the ERA has a better chance of passing. 

 

Peace out, I'm zonked. It's midnight here and y'all made me look at my law school notes which made me die a little inside.  

Edited September 24, 2019 by elmcitymaven
I'm tired and homophones confuse me when I haven't slept enough.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Bcking would be proud!