Jump to content
Mike E

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

 Share

213 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Dashinka said:

The big question is should the Supreme Court or for that matter elected representatives be the ones to set a viability standard?  Shouldn't this be between the Dr. and the woman?

I think the criteria for when a Fetus is viable is pretty easy to figure out. When the baby can live out side the womb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Wales
Timeline

A boy in US state of Alabama, who was born at 21 weeks of pregnancy, has created a world record for being the earliest premature baby to survive. Born in Birmingham, Alabama, Curtis Means was 132 days premature on July 5, 2020. He weighed only 14.8 ounces, reported the Associated Press.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Russia
Timeline
16 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I think the criteria for when a Fetus is viable is pretty easy to figure out. When the baby can live out side the womb

As Boiler showed us, technology may change whatever standard a governing body chooses.

Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Australia
Timeline
18 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Should a woman at 8 months decide she does not want it and for  that reason only abort?  If I attack the mother and the baby dies I am charged with murder. I agree with you 100% but when you start getting into totally viable fetus it gets a bit murky. Other than for health reasons of baby or mother. 

 

Side note. I read an article from one of the left media outlets. I swear to god.  "Abortion restrictions disproportionately  affect young females". Yes that was actually said. Of course in this age of men can get pregnant stupidity, some may think that is not obvious 

Using an abortion at 8 months is a red herring used to invoke an emotional response. People do not carry a child for 8 months only to decide to then abort. At 8 months most parents have picked out a name and are setting up a nursery. 1% of all abortions occur after 21 weeks, which is still the second trimester. So why are we using the EXCEPTION to form the general rule?

 

People who bring up so-called late-term abortions should consider what that mother and unborn child are going through that leads to such a decision. Likely the mother's life and/or baby's life is in serious jeopardy, or the baby is determined to not be viable/unable to live outside the womb.

 

Women have died due some doctors' unwillingness to even remove a dead or dying fetus from the mother because they still see it as abortion. Are women's lives worth so little?

 

Edited to add: I don't think the standard should be based on viability because viability will continue to change as medical technology progresses. If you want to consider viability a factor, it should be based on the viability of a fetus without life support/extraordinary medical intervention.

Edited by beloved_dingo

K1 to AOS                                                                                   AOS/EAD/AP                                                                      N-400

03/01/2018 - I-129F Mailed                                              06/19/2019 - NOA1 Date                                              01/27/2023 - N-400 Filed Online

03/08/2018 - NOA1 Date                                                    07/11/2019 - Biometrics Appt                                   02/23/2023 - Biometrics Appt
09/14/2018 - NOA2 Date                                                    12/13/2019 - EAD/AP Approved                               04/03/2023 - Interview Scheduled

10/16/2018 - NVC Received                                              12/17/2019 - Interview Scheduled                          05/10/2023 - Interview - APPROVED!

10/21/2018 - Packet 3 Received                                      01/29/2020 - Interview - APPROVED!                  OFFICIALLY A U.S. CITIZEN! 

12/30/2018 - Packet 3 Sent                                               02/04/2020 - Green Card Received! 

01/06/2019 - Packet 4 Received                                     ROC - I-751

01/29/2019 - Interview - APPROVED!                           11/02/2021 - Mailed ROC Packet

02/05/2019 - Visa Received                                             11/04/2021 - NOA1 Date

05/17/2019 - U.S. Arrival                                                     01/19/2022 - Biometrics Waived

05/24/2019 - Married ❤️                                                    02/04/2023 - Transferred to New Office

06/14/2019 - Mailed AOS Packet                                    05/10/2023 - APPROVED!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Wales
Timeline
12 minutes ago, beloved_dingo said:

Using an abortion at 8 months is a red herring used to invoke an emotional response. People do not carry a child for 8 months only to decide to then abort. At 8 months most parents have picked out a name and are setting up a nursery. 1% of all abortions occur after 21 weeks, which is still the second trimester. So why are we using the EXCEPTION to form the general rule?

 

People who bring up so-called late-term abortions should consider what that mother and unborn child are going through that leads to such a decision. Likely the mother's life and/or baby's life is in serious jeopardy, or the baby is determined to not be viable/unable to live outside the womb.

 

Women have died due some doctors' unwillingness to even remove a dead or dying fetus from the mother because they still see it as abortion. Are women's lives worth so little?

 

Edited to add: I don't think the standard should be based on viability because viability will continue to change as medical technology progresses. If you want to consider viability a factor, it should be based on the viability of a fetus without life support/extraordinary medical intervention.

It would appear some do not want any restrictions and yes they may be small in percentage terms but 1% of a large number is not insignificant 

 

UK I think is 24 weeks and pretty much a non issue, or perhaps I was not paying attention 

 

I think it is easier to draw a line somewhere than have no limitations with the inevitable horror stories

 

My reasoning is if you have something that most people consider is OK then it takes the wind out of each end of the spectrum 

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Russia
Timeline
1 hour ago, beloved_dingo said:

Using an abortion at 8 months is a red herring used to invoke an emotional response. People do not carry a child for 8 months only to decide to then abort. At 8 months most parents have picked out a name and are setting up a nursery. 1% of all abortions occur after 21 weeks, which is still the second trimester. So why are we using the EXCEPTION to form the general rule?

 

People who bring up so-called late-term abortions should consider what that mother and unborn child are going through that leads to such a decision. Likely the mother's life and/or baby's life is in serious jeopardy, or the baby is determined to not be viable/unable to live outside the womb.

 

Women have died due some doctors' unwillingness to even remove a dead or dying fetus from the mother because they still see it as abortion. Are women's lives worth so little?

 

Edited to add: I don't think the standard should be based on viability because viability will continue to change as medical technology progresses. If you want to consider viability a factor, it should be based on the viability of a fetus without life support/extraordinary medical intervention.

To be fair, no child born is viable without care for quite some time.  I tend to agree though, 3rd term abortions are very rare and in fact abortions after 15 weeks are also very rare and most likely due to some form of medical concern either for the mother or the child.  The data I have seen show 3rd term abortions are something like 1% which is approximately 9,000.  Not sure if there are any of those for convenience, but I suspect some of them might be.  Regardless,  I do suspect that if the Dems make due on their promises, they will pass unrestricted access to abortions through the entire pregnancy.  We shall see.

Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Australia
Timeline
23 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

To be fair, no child born is viable without care for quite some time.  I tend to agree though, 3rd term abortions are very rare and in fact abortions after 15 weeks are also very rare and most likely due to some form of medical concern either for the mother or the child.  The data I have seen show 3rd term abortions are something like 1% which is approximately 9,000.  Not sure if there are any of those for convenience, but I suspect some of them might be.  Regardless,  I do suspect that if the Dems make due on their promises, they will pass unrestricted access to abortions through the entire pregnancy.  We shall see.

Even if unrestricted access was allowed, I doubt the number of late-term abortions would change much, if at all. People who do not want to have a child also do not want to be pregnant. Why on earth would someone wait until month 8 if they can get an abortion at month 3? Why would someone carry an unwanted pregnancy nearly to term, with all the hardship pregnancy entails, only to have an abortion that is so much more traumatic that it would've been earlier in the pregnancy? I think it would take some pretty outlandish or horrific circumstances to create this situation. And a doctor has to be willing to perform the procedure as well. I doubt there are many doctors out there who want to go into the business of aborting fully viable, healthy babies at 30 weeks.

 

Abortion access = safe abortions. Lack of abortion access = unsafe abortions. Abortion isn't going away regardless of what the law is. 

 

@Dashinka That's why I said viable "without life support/extraordinary medical intervention". Of course a newborn can't live without care but that is not the point.

Edited by beloved_dingo

K1 to AOS                                                                                   AOS/EAD/AP                                                                      N-400

03/01/2018 - I-129F Mailed                                              06/19/2019 - NOA1 Date                                              01/27/2023 - N-400 Filed Online

03/08/2018 - NOA1 Date                                                    07/11/2019 - Biometrics Appt                                   02/23/2023 - Biometrics Appt
09/14/2018 - NOA2 Date                                                    12/13/2019 - EAD/AP Approved                               04/03/2023 - Interview Scheduled

10/16/2018 - NVC Received                                              12/17/2019 - Interview Scheduled                          05/10/2023 - Interview - APPROVED!

10/21/2018 - Packet 3 Received                                      01/29/2020 - Interview - APPROVED!                  OFFICIALLY A U.S. CITIZEN! 

12/30/2018 - Packet 3 Sent                                               02/04/2020 - Green Card Received! 

01/06/2019 - Packet 4 Received                                     ROC - I-751

01/29/2019 - Interview - APPROVED!                           11/02/2021 - Mailed ROC Packet

02/05/2019 - Visa Received                                             11/04/2021 - NOA1 Date

05/17/2019 - U.S. Arrival                                                     01/19/2022 - Biometrics Waived

05/24/2019 - Married ❤️                                                    02/04/2023 - Transferred to New Office

06/14/2019 - Mailed AOS Packet                                    05/10/2023 - APPROVED!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Russia
Timeline
9 minutes ago, beloved_dingo said:

Even if unrestricted access was allowed, I doubt the number of late-term abortions would change much, if at all. People who do not want to have a child also do not want to be pregnant. Why on earth would someone wait until month 8 if they can get an abortion at month 3? Why would someone carry an unwanted pregnancy nearly to term, with all the hardship pregnancy entails, only to have an abortion that is so much more traumatic that it would've been earlier in the pregnancy? I think it would take some pretty outlandish or horrific circumstances to create this situation. And a doctor has to be willing to perform the procedure as well. I doubt there are many doctors out there who want to go into the business of aborting fully viable, healthy babies at 30 weeks.

 

Abortion access = safe abortions. Lack of abortion access = unsafe abortions. Abortion isn't going away regardless of what the law is. 

 

@Dashinka That's why I said viable "without life support/extraordinary medical intervention". Of course a newborn can't live without care but that is not the point.

Yeah, I believe there are only 4 doctors/clinics in the US that will perform a 3rd trimester abortion.  The only situation I can think of apart from the aforementioned medical concern would be if a relationship breakdown occurred and the woman really did not want to have the child in the first place.  As I said earlier, if the legislature were smart, they would model any abortion law similar to what they do in most of Europe, 12 weeks (1st trimester) with exceptions for medical concerns.  

Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all pretty much agree except for some fine tuning,  which is amazing for any issue.

 

I just winder why this polarizing issue thar resonates with ditches on both sides came roaring into the fore front right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Country: Guyana
Timeline
10 hours ago, Boiler said:

A boy in US state of Alabama, who was born at 21 weeks of pregnancy, has created a world record for being the earliest premature baby to survive. Born in Birmingham, Alabama, Curtis Means was 132 days premature on July 5, 2020. He weighed only 14.8 ounces, reported the Associated Press.

May or may not be a "record".  In 1947, my mother was born prematurely around the same time frame.  The doctors wanted to discard the "fetus", but my great-grandmother took her home, put her in a shoe box with towels and a light bulb for heat, and nursed her for several months.  

 

Definitely NOT the norm, but I for one am pretty damn glad she wasn't allowed to die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Country: Guyana
Timeline
45 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

We all pretty much agree except for some fine tuning,  which is amazing for any issue.

 

I just winder why this polarizing issue thar resonates with ditches on both sides came roaring into the fore front right now.

The Mules can give you 2,000 reasons why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ecuador
Timeline
45 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I just winder why this polarizing issue thar resonates with ditches on both sides came roaring into the fore front right now.

English-only outside the regional forums!  :bonk: 

7 hours ago, beloved_dingo said:

all the hardship pregnancy entails

We fathers who survived The First Trimester can comment on this. :P 

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ecuador
Timeline

It's been proposed (and I agree) that, what with the unauthorized release of the draft decision, the Supreme Court should accelerate their decision in this case before the radical elements have a chance to organize and commit destruction and mayhem.

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished skimming through this thread.  Good discussion.  Wondering if any of you know this.

 

Do any states have or are proposing an extreme restriction on abortion?

Spouse

Nov. 29th, 2020: I-130 submitted online, NOA 1 Nov. 30th, 2020

Feb. 19th, 2021: Case Is Being Actively Reviewed By USCIS

Feb. 19th, 2021: I-130 Approved 😊

Feb. 25th, 2021: Welcome letter from NVC

Mar. 9th, 2021:  Received Hard Copy NOA 2 I-797 in mail

October, 2021: One Year Postponement of Move, Visa Completion On Hold

Feb. 4th, 2022: Submitted DS 260

 

Stepdaughter

Nov. 29th, 2020: I-130 submitted online, NOA 1 Nov. 30th, 2020

Dec. 9th, 2020: Case Is Being Actively Reviewed By USCIS

Feb. 19th, 2021: Case Is Being Actively Reviewed By USCIS

Feb. 19th, 2021: I-130 Approved 😊

Feb. 25th, 2021: Welcome letter from NVC

Mar. 9th, 2021:  Received Hard Copy NOA 2 I-797 in mail

October, 2021: One Year Postponement of Move, Visa Completion On Hold

Feb. 4th, 2022: Submitted DS 260

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Country: Guyana
Timeline
3 minutes ago, seekingthetruth said:

I just finished skimming through this thread.  Good discussion.  Wondering if any of you know this.

 

Do any states have or are proposing an extreme restriction on abortion?

Is this considered extreme?
 

https://www.eutimes.net/2022/03/california-abortion-bill-could-legalize-infanticide-for-weeks-months-or-even-years-after-birth/ 

Edited by LIBrty4all
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...