Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

[beloved_dingo 1,976]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

So how do they handle it down under?

The specific laws do vary a bit by state/territory, but it is legal at the federal level. My husband is from Victoria (where Melbourne is located), and it is accessible up to 24 weeks there. I believe after 24 weeks, it can still be performed after that if 2 doctors approve it. The state that is most strict about it is Tasmania, but it is still accessible up to 16 weeks and it is legal after 16 weeks with 2 doctors' approval. Interestingly, there is no gestational limit in the ACT (Australian Capital Territory) but that is a very small area. 

 

It's worth noting that the fairly liberal abortion laws that are currently in place there are fairly new in some cases.

 

Also the "Liberal party" there is the conservative party comparable to Republicans here, so that gets confusing as heck sometimes during political discussions. 

Edited May 10, 2022 by beloved_dingo

[beloved_dingo 1,976]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

Pretty much it in a nutshell. And as you can see in an example of the woman in the previous article that had a late term abortion, she still had to go through hard labor anyway. Late term abortions are complex, difficult, and rarely ever for convenience, and studies show that is also usually the case.

 

Because we are not banning something that no one does. We are increasingly banning all types and scenarios of abortion, including ones that should always be available and necessary. We are also lumping in birth control and implying eggs have personhood. We are also getting government involved in the regulation of bodily autonomy, liberty, and private sex lives. I do not know anyone that has had an abortion out of 'convenience'. It is doubtful that anyone here does. That does not mean it does not happen. There will be some people that would argue aborting the fetus of a rape victim is convenient or aborting a fetus that is non-viable is convenient. Laws increasingly are not taking into account a variety of scenarios. 

 

Yeah I agree with this. It can be argued that terminating any unwanted pregnancy, regardless of the reasons involved, is out of "convenience". But it's a bad, ignorant take. 

 

That reminds me, I recall in a Bioethics class I took we read a paper where the author kept saying that the purpose of abortion is to "avoid future responsibilities" and I felt my blood pressure go up every time I read that phrase. 

 

Also there's this weird stereotype that women who have abortions are single, lonely, childless women when the reality is that most women who have an abortion end up having at least one child at a later time. Meaning that there are a large number of women who have had abortions that are also mothers. The whole "family planning" aspect really gets glossed over. I feel like a world where most children were both planned and wanted would have a very positive effect on humanity...

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

2 hours ago, beloved_dingo said:

I mean, you can find every brand of extreme politics and the "loud minority" is very much a thing on both sides of the political spectrum. Every pro-choice person I know (as in, actually know in person) does not believe an abortion should be performed at 8-9 months "for convenience". Hell at that point it would make more sense to just give birth and put the kid up for adoption.

 

Both sides love talking in extremes about this issue, and it is disingenuous to do that imo. Sure, taking the "extreme" into account is one thing, but those talking points shouldn't have any basis in any good-faith discussion on this topic. 

 

The fact is, many things are legal even if they could potentially cause unintended harm or be abused in a way that was not intended. Sure there may be some mentally ill woman that gets pregnant for kicks and then gets abortions performed as late as possible. But should we form our laws based on an extreme possibility? The REALITY is, that without safe and legal abortions, women die. That is a fact. It is not an extreme notion, it is an undeniable reality of life. 

Quite the contrary.  Many laws are formed becuse of extreme behavior. Murder,  rape, bank robbery, kidnapping,  bribery etc. All extreme behaviors. 

 

The vast majority of Americans, myself included are in favor of legal safe abortion within reason. 

 

However the absurd rhetoric continues that we want to ban contraceptive choices, women's health care, Ban procedures that save mothers lives, etc. That is just a small minority of extremist. 

Once again if none is getting late term abortion for convince,  then why is there a problem restricting it.

[Boiler 45,467]

Let's say it is an issue and needs to be protested, why have the numerous States who are D and have limitations not seen this?

[beloved_dingo 1,976]

36 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Quite the contrary.  Many laws are formed becuse of extreme behavior. Murder,  rape, bank robbery, kidnapping,  bribery etc. All extreme behaviors. 

 

The vast majority of Americans, myself included are in favor of legal safe abortion within reason. 

 

However the absurd rhetoric continues that we want to ban contraceptive choices, women's health care, Ban procedures that save mothers lives, etc. That is just a small minority of extremist. 

Once again if none is getting late term abortion for convince,  then why is there a problem restricting it.

Things like murder are extreme by default, so I'm not sure if that really applies to my point.

 

And I already said that using extreme (or incredibly rare) circumstances as talking points on both sides is disingenuous.

 

The reality is we need to wait and see what the final decision by the Supreme Court states and THEN see what happens in the ~25 states that want to severely restrict reproductive rights (if that final decision is in line with the draft we have seen). 

Edited May 10, 2022 by beloved_dingo

[Boiler 45,467]

1 hour ago, beloved_dingo said:

The specific laws do vary a bit by state/territory, but it is legal at the federal level. My husband is from Victoria (where Melbourne is located), and it is accessible up to 24 weeks there. I believe after 24 weeks, it can still be performed after that if 2 doctors approve it. The state that is most strict about it is Tasmania, but it is still accessible up to 16 weeks and it is legal after 16 weeks with 2 doctors' approval. Interestingly, there is no gestational limit in the ACT (Australian Capital Territory) but that is a very small area. 

 

It's worth noting that the fairly liberal abortion laws that are currently in place there are fairly new in some cases.

 

Also the "Liberal party" there is the conservative party comparable to Republicans here, so that gets confusing as heck sometimes during political discussions. 

I expect the US to end up similar but with more extremes because it is the US

 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

4 hours ago, beloved_dingo said:

Things like murder are extreme by default, so I'm not sure if that really applies to my point.

 

And I already said that using extreme (or incredibly rare) circumstances as talking points on both sides is disingenuous.

 

The reality is we need to wait and see what the final decision by the Supreme Court states and THEN see what happens in the ~25 states that want to severely restrict reproductive rights (if that final decision is in line with the draft we have seen). 

Totally agree. I think we got the cart way ahead of the hoarse. 

 

[Fuerteventura 29]

In Texas, abortion laws inhibit care for miscarriages

As the Supreme Court appears poised to return abortion regulation to the states, recent experience in Texas illustrates that medical care for miscarriages and dangerous ectopic pregnancies would also be threatened if restrictions become more widespread.

One Texas law passed last year lists several medications as abortion-inducing drugs and largely bars their use for abortion after the seventh week of pregnancy. But two of those drugs, misoprostol and mifepristone, are the only drugs recommended in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines for treating a patient after an early pregnancy loss.

The other miscarriage treatment is a procedure described as surgical uterine evacuation to remove the pregnancy tissue — the same approach as for an abortion.

"The challenge is that the treatment for an abortion and the treatment for a miscarriage are exactly the same," said Dr. Sarah Prager, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington in Seattle and an expert in early pregnancy loss.

Miscarriages occur in roughly 1 out of 10 pregnancies. Some people experience loss of pregnancy at home and don't require additional care, other than emotional support, said Dr. Tony Ogburn, who chairs the OB-GYN department at the University of Texas-Rio Grande Valley School of Medicine. But in other situations, he said, providers may need to intervene to stop bleeding and make sure no pregnancy tissue remains, as a guard against infection.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/05/10/1097734167/in-texas-abortion-laws-inhibit-care-for-miscarriages

 

[TBoneTX 45,267]

3 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

got the cart way ahead of the hoarse.

= what happened to the protesters who yelled all day long about a draft decision

 

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

On 5/10/2022 at 3:36 AM, Dashinka said:

On another note, it actually is illegal to protest at the home of a federal judge.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507

The difficulty is proving intent. Let's look at the text (emphasis mine):

Quote

 

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.

 

Intent is difficult to prove in the absence of overt statements like "unless you find Jack Sprat innocent, we're going to dig up your prize rose bushes" -- a mild threat, but a threat made with the intent to influence a judge who loves his rose bushes. At that point, you're looking for objective, circumstantial evidence to prove subjective intent. This is a little more straightforward when you're dealing with, say, extortion, and a little less when you're treading into what resembles more closely First Amendment activity. Keep in mind that federal prosecutors haaaaaaaaaaate bringing charges they think they can't get a conviction on. When you're wandering into First Amendmentland, the ground is uncertain if the government is trying to curtail speech. Restrictions on free speech must be narrowly tailored, even when not content-based. Remember: this is a good thing. 

 

I looked yesterday at the line of cases which deal with 18 USC 1507 and to be honest, there's not much out there. 32 cases on Westlaw, in fact. This should tell you something! Protesting at a justice's home isn't in and of itself a crime. It comes back to "the intent to influence" which -- though I admit to some bias here -- is kind of nebulous in the current circumstances. If the protestors are demonstrating not to change the minds of justices but rather to express their disgust and dismay at the draft opinion, this is protected speech, end of, cops there only to keep the peace, etc. If the protestors are there with the intent to change the justices' minds so that the opinion is redrafted to favor the position of the demonstrators, then potentially yes, there has been a violation of the statute. How do you delineate between those in the former category from the latter? What happens if many people are charged with violation of the statute who fell into the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore so I'm going to tell you you suck" camp, and all those charges are thrown out? That's a whole lotta civil rights lawsuits coming down the pike, and potentially beaucoup bucks that Uncle Sam will have to pony up.

 

Bear in mind, these are misdemeanors. The hassle of charging hundreds of people with petty crimes of speech-based civil disobedience -- in the absence of damage to property or persons -- is outweighed by the potential exposure to civil liability. Cops should be there to keep the peace, and protestors should understand the limits of their freedom of expression.

[TBoneTX 45,267]

7 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Bear in mind, these are misdemeanors.

I myself would characterize them as tortfeasin'.

 

Maven, please take a look at the other thread, about the DSU lacrosse team's bus having been stopped.  Is the Fourth Amendment alive, or still on life support?

[Dashinka 24,488]

12 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

The difficulty is proving intent. Let's look at the text (emphasis mine):

Intent is difficult to prove in the absence of overt statements like "unless you find Jack Sprat innocent, we're going to dig up your prize rose bushes" -- a mild threat, but a threat made with the intent to influence a judge who loves his rose bushes. At that point, you're looking for objective, circumstantial evidence to prove subjective intent. This is a little more straightforward when you're dealing with, say, extortion, and a little less when you're treading into what resembles more closely First Amendment activity. Keep in mind that federal prosecutors haaaaaaaaaaate bringing charges they think they can't get a conviction on. When you're wandering into First Amendmentland, the ground is uncertain if the government is trying to curtail speech. Restrictions on free speech must be narrowly tailored, even when not content-based. Remember: this is a good thing. 

 

I looked yesterday at the line of cases which deal with 18 USC 1507 and to be honest, there's not much out there. 32 cases on Westlaw, in fact. This should tell you something! Protesting at a justice's home isn't in and of itself a crime. It comes back to "the intent to influence" which -- though I admit to some bias here -- is kind of nebulous in the current circumstances. If the protestors are demonstrating not to change the minds of justices but rather to express their disgust and dismay at the draft opinion, this is protected speech, end of, cops there only to keep the peace, etc. If the protestors are there with the intent to change the justices' minds so that the opinion is redrafted to favor the position of the demonstrators, then potentially yes, there has been a violation of the statute. How do you delineate between those in the former category from the latter? What happens if many people are charged with violation of the statute who fell into the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore so I'm going to tell you you suck" camp, and all those charges are thrown out? That's a whole lotta civil rights lawsuits coming down the pike, and potentially beaucoup bucks that Uncle Sam will have to pony up.

 

Bear in mind, these are misdemeanors. The hassle of charging hundreds of people with petty crimes of speech-based civil disobedience -- in the absence of damage to property or persons -- is outweighed by the potential exposure to civil liability. Cops should be there to keep the peace, and protestors should understand the limits of their freedom of expression.

I would say this is pretty obvious since the decision has not been made yet.  If one was protesting after the final decision was released then I would agree, it would be hard to prove intent to influence, but with a final decision still pending it seems fairly obvious these protesters are trying to intimidate or influence these justices by protesting at their homes and involving their families.  Who really knows, but my point was there is a law on the books that would apply here, just as it would apply to a lower court justice that was still deciding a case, or a federal jury in the deliberations, or a federal prosecutor deciding on charging someone.  Regardless, it sets an interesting precedent for the future.  I do wonder what the activist media and Left would be saying if protesters showed up outside of the homes of Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer or Jackson once she takes over, when SCOTUS is still debating a 2nd Amendment case?

 

Regardless of the level of the crime, the attack on the justice system seems to be fairly serious.  I realize the DoJ has more important things to look into such as investigating protesting parents as terrorists, but it is laughable that the AG has not come out against this fairly obvious obstruction of justice.

 

In the end though, these politically motivated protests at private residences are in extremely poor taste, I for one am not inclined to support groups that use these kinds of tactics.

 

https://nypost.com/2022/05/10/doj-ag-garland-silent-on-abortion-protests-at-scotus-homes/

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

3 hours ago, Dashinka said:

I would say this is pretty obvious since the decision has not been made yet.  If one was protesting after the final decision was released then I would agree, it would be hard to prove intent to influence, but with a final decision still pending it seems fairly obvious these protesters are trying to intimidate or influence these justices by protesting at their homes and involving their families.  Who really knows, but my point was there is a law on the books that would apply here, just as it would apply to a lower court justice that was still deciding a case, or a federal jury in the deliberations, or a federal prosecutor deciding on charging someone.  Regardless, it sets an interesting precedent for the future.  I do wonder what the activist media and Left would be saying if protesters showed up outside of the homes of Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer or Jackson once she takes over, when SCOTUS is still debating a 2nd Amendment case?

 

Regardless of the level of the crime, the attack on the justice system seems to be fairly serious.  I realize the DoJ has more important things to look into such as investigating protesting parents as terrorists, but it is laughable that the AG has not come out against this fairly obvious obstruction of justice.

 

In the end though, these politically motivated protests at private residences are in extremely poor taste, I for one am not inclined to support groups that use these kinds of tactics.

 

https://nypost.com/2022/05/10/doj-ag-garland-silent-on-abortion-protests-at-scotus-homes/

FBI Sternly Warns Mob At Justice Kavanaugh's Home To Stay Away From School Board Member's House Next Door

WASHINGTON, D.C.—FBI agents confronted the mob surrounding Justice Kavanaugh's home today, warning them to steer clear of the house next door as a local school board member

lives there.

"Sure would hate to have to charge one of you nice people with domestic terrorism," said Agent Raymond Epley to a group of women lighting baby dolls on fire. "By all means, threaten 

the justice and his family! But if you set one foot on the school board treasurer's lawn, it's a one-way trip to Gitmo."

The FBI had initially declined to investigate security risks to the Supreme Court justices as they were busy planning how to kidnap another moderately attractive Democrat governor.

However, after being alerted of the mob's proximity to a school board member, the FBI immediately surrounded the area with snipers and dispatched several SWAT units.

more at https://babylonbee.com/news/fbi-sternly-warns-mob-at-justice-alitos-home-to-stay-away-from-school-board-members-house-next-door
 

Edited May 12, 2022 by Ban Hammer

[Dashinka 24,488]

Well, let the fun begin.

 

Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade in landmark opinion

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization

[LIBrty4all 3,749]