Roe v. Wade.

[redwood66]

Think it's usually 12-14 weeks in those countries that generally permit abortion? Although I recently read that South Australia's new legislation -- which takes effect next month -- permits abortions upon request up through 22 weeks. I wonder how many legislators who have opposed/would oppose the codification of Roe, with its viability standard, would agree to a bill with a generally earlier time limit.

It's a huge issue with many people the fact that in the US it's 6 months. So many preemies are born and live in this and earlier timeframes. The fact that it's not lower sticks in my craw horribly. It might be easier if it were lower, and not a ton of other things thrown in, that a majority could agree on. Most people are not that far off from each other, but it's the extremes with the loudest voices who keep that from happening. Almost like there's no point in talking about it or trying.

 

[doberman]

Right now the plan should begin with exposing the hypocrisy. Use some of that donated political money to hire detectives and journalists to ferret out all the abortions these right wing nut jobs in the Senate and Congress have gotten for their wives, girlfriends and hookups. I am positive that this could be done, and it should have been, years ago, but the Dem parry is too focused on taking the high road.

That's step 1.

Quite frankly I believe a civil war is coming. The country has become so polarized that working for the greater good has become impossible. We are selling our house in a red state, I have no wish to contribute to that state's economy since their posture on abortion is draconian. If Stacy Abrams is successful I might reconsider, but reading the tea leaves, I fear she will not be.

 

[Matata]

I wonder how many legislators who have opposed/would oppose the codification of Roe, with its viability standard, would agree to a bill with a generally earlier time limit.

I would hope that viability stays the predominant factor. Pro life advocates and some house republicans believe a fetus feels pain at 20 wks and I read some comments this morning that fetuses are pain capable between 12-14 wks. and they won't support abortion of a fetus that feels pain. No mention was made of use of anesthesia. I haven't searched for corroborating research so I have no idea when pain occurs and my opinion is that is irrelevant. I would also like to see viability narrowed to exclude medical assistance. That is, if 20 wks is the limit, it must be 20 wks without medical intervention. Advances in medicine have made tremendous strides to the point that a 21 wk preemie survived birth in 2020 and is thriving. What I'm trying to say in this ramble is that the goal posts will continue to be moved by those who oppose abortion. I don't know how those viewpoints would be satisfied by any amount of compromise.

 

[redwood66]

What I'm trying to say in this ramble is that the goal posts will continue to be moved by those who oppose abortion. I don't know how those viewpoints would be satisfied by any amount of compromise.

I hesitate to continue this thought because of the p word, though Roe can't be truly discussed without it. It's up to the people to decide what is a compromise and the "chosen" people who it's their job, eff it up. I don't know if they want a compromise on either side because it gets them chosen and we get stuck with the mess. Trying not to use the V word.

 

[kenny]

...
Kenny, you also live in a state that will not ban marriage between people who love each other no matter the sex, race, religion etc.

...

Thanks missy, I hope you're right.

I just worry these weenies may go after us by changing marriage from a state thing to a federal thing.

 

[kenny]

I didnt see your original question, Kenny. I never intentionally ignore people, so sorry if it appeared that way.

I believe it’s eliminating the filibuster for starters so you can pass a bill into law without 60 percent of the vote, rather I think it drops to 50. There are two Democrats that resist the removal of the filibuster. Negotiate with them? Also, Dems should be negotiating with Rep members of Congress to pass a “stop gap” bodily autonomy law. And NIH (HHS) might consider an emergency ruling on protecting womens health and autonomy. These are ideas but I’m just a citizen wondering why it looks like Dems are shocked and standing with their pants down with no methodical/articulated path forward other than “vote for us” several months from now. IMO this is not a situation that can be “left up to the States” for several months.

Thanks, LightBright.

 

[fel]

In this country we have billionaires, where 10 million dollars could easily be a rounding error, and we have children experiencing the severe severe pain of hunger, or lack of health care for disease or disability or homelessness. Yet nobody suggests taking away that billionaires money to help the hungry or homeless. At most we have a very very small proportional tax, only on their new income.

If we care so much about pain -- how about the pain of the starving? And how about a mother's pain during 9 months of pregnancy (I personally vomited for months) and the pain of childbirth itself. How about the pain of having your body forever damaged from carrying a fetus to term (I need physical therapy to this day from injuries sustained carrying a fetus.).

In the end, the whole story goes back to this puritanical view that the woman somehow deserve to be pregnant because they had sexual relations. Alternatively, the billionaire man "earned" his money and no one should be able to say what he does with it.

 

[Matata]

I don't know if they want a compromise on either side because it gets them chosen and we get stuck with the mess.

Thank you for the segue to the other elephant in the room. What will be done to support the women forced to give birth and what will be done for the babies? It was funny in a tragic way to see a few governors whose states enacted trigger laws on the news yesterday speaking about how they now need to figure out what to do to support the women and the babies. The same states that have had trigger laws on the books for quite some time are just now beginning to think about the consequences. They have at best 9 months to come up with solutions.

 

[kenny]

...
A half million people live in Wyoming, over 39 million live in California, and each state gets 2 senators. So apparently the views of Wyoming residents are just 78 times more important than the views of Californians. ...

But it could also be said that the views of California residents are 53 times more important than the views of residents of Wyoming, because of the number of House seats each has.

The system is supposedly designed to balance out state population discrepancies.

 

[Demon]

You couldn't pay me enough to live in Texas

Republican lawmakers in Texas already discussing legislation to further punish abortion crimes

Possible legislation would even allow district attorneys to prosecute residents in a different county.

www.wfaa.com

 

[fel]

But it could also be said that the views of California residents are 53 times more important than the views of residents of Wyoming, because of the number of House seats each has.

The system is supposed to be designed to balance out state population discrepancies.

I'm sorry Kenny but that really doesn't equate: House seats are mapped to population. No Californian gets more power in the House than a person in Wyoming. they have closer to equal power in the house (sparse states still have an advantage), and very very uneven power in the Senate. Once again, the Senate confirms the Supreme court. The system was designed to maintain state interests regardless of population, because in slave states there was a sparse voting population (i.e. the enslaved couldn't vote.)

 

[MrsBlue]

It's a huge issue with many people the fact that in the US it's 6 months. So many preemies are born and live in this and earlier timeframes. The fact that it's not lower sticks in my craw horribly. It might be easier if it were lower, and not a ton of other things thrown in, that a majority could agree on. Most people are not that far off from each other, but it's the extremes with the loudest voices who keep that from happening. Almost like there's no point in talking about it or trying.

This procedure is necessary for women like one I knew many years ago. Her very much loved and wanted baby was found to have extremely severe developmental defects and she had one of these later term abortions to minimize risk to her own health. It was devastating but I believe it was her choice to make. The child would have been born without life-sustaining organs.

I read somewhere that only 1% of abortions were performed post 21 wks. For the sake of women like the one I knew, I support this procedure, and I would prefer that women have access to early abortion care so that late procedures remain as rare as possible.

 

[fel]

Note: approximately 1 in 4 women experience domestic violence from an intimate partner. Often rape, coercion and the threat of pregnancy is used to control the woman. Men will purposefully rape or coerce a women to have sex without protection so that the women will be trapped in the relationship. Sometimes the man will threaten to physically harm an existing child if the woman doesn't submit. The man may threaten to sue for custody or kill an existing child if the woman reports the rape. Women's shelters have for years known that getting women away from an abusive partner often involves reproductive healthcare, including potentially abortion.

Another fun fact: what is the largest cause of mortality in pregnant women?
Did you guess homicide by their partner?

I was actually foreman on a jury for a domestic partner rape case. After we found the man guilty of rape, aggravated assault and making terroristic threats (i.e. to kill the baby), the judge let us know that the man had multiple prior similar convictions. We were not allowed to know that during the trial.

 

[redwood66]

This procedure is necessary for women like one I knew many years ago. Her very much loved and wanted baby was found to have extremely severe developmental defects and she had one of these later term abortions to minimize risk to her own health. It was devastating but I believe it was her choice to make. The child would have been born without life-sustaining organs.

I read somewhere that only 1% of abortions were performed post 21 wks. For the sake of women like the one I knew, I support this procedure, and I would prefer that women have access to early abortion care so that late procedures remain as rare as possible.

I completely understand. It's the same for rape and incest, very low percentages. But those reasons are the ones used like it happens all the time. It doesn't. So to many opponents it seems like proponents don't discuss in good faith. It's too polarized by the extremes on both sides.

 

[m-cubed]

Thank you for the segue to the other elephant in the room. What will be done to support the women forced to give birth and what will be done for the babies? It was funny in a tragic way to see a few governors whose states enacted trigger laws on the news yesterday speaking about how they now need to figure out what to do to support the women and the babies. The same states that have had trigger laws on the books for quite some time are just now beginning to think about the consequences. They have at best 9 months to come up with solutions.

Nothing. Nothing will be done to support pregnant women or babies that are not wanted. What happens now for them? Nothing. That will not change. The people who are trying to outlaw abortion don’t actually care about any downstream consequences except for controlling women and privileging a clump of cells. It’s disgusting.

 

[redwood66]

Thank you for the segue to the other elephant in the room. What will be done to support the women forced to give birth and what will be done for the babies? It was funny in a tragic way to see a few governors whose states enacted trigger laws on the news yesterday speaking about how they now need to figure out what to do to support the women and the babies. The same states that have had trigger laws on the books for quite some time are just now beginning to think about the consequences. They have at best 9 months to come up with solutions.

I don't know. But there's so many who need help and aren't getting it. Elderly, veterans, mentally impaired.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

The first thing that needs to happen is the lies and societal shame attached to women's rights need to end. Decisions need to be made with verifiable facts and norms and not religious fervor. https://post.ca.gov/portals/0/post_docs/publications/Building a Career Pipeline Documents/safe_harbor.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/poor-single-mothers-need-money-not-husbands/2022/04/04/235d17ae-b41c-11ec-8358-20aa16355fb4_story.html

Many of these children will live a life of depravation in every facet of their lives. We punish them and their mother for existing. Our largest single poverty group is single mothers with small children. We have millions of children who starve right now.
80% of single parents households are mothers with nearly a quarter of all American children under the age of 18 living in these households.

We cannot pretend to care about the sanctity of life when we do everything in our power to make their lives short and brutal. Many of their outcomes as adults are influenced by this. There are many studies that have been done on the societal ramifications that can be found.

This is the term percentages of abortions had in America.

It is hypocritical in the extreme to deny healthcare, education, basic necessities like food and access to clean water, or the choice of the individual American citizen and continue in the same breath to shame these babies and their mothers as freeloaders while forcing them to take on more children they cannot support. This ties into reasons we are no longer a first world by definition in swathes of our country and one of many reasons we have been on the list of backsliding Democracies for years before overturning Roe v. Wade. Women are being relegated even further below second class and now effectively into chattel slavery. We are not a free country. This decision will further erode the quality of life, health and safety for all of us.


I don't believe a mother making a choice for her body is a moral failing, taking away that choice most certainly is.

 

[winnietucker]

I’m very interested in how states that outlaw abortion will handle this. I hope it’s not the shit show I expect it to be. I gave birth this year and the medical bills since my baby’s birth have totaled over $75,000. This does not include any of the prenatal visits, nor does it include many of the many appointments my child will have throughout this year. Luckily I have very good health insurance through my husband’s employer but I imagine many women who don’t have the means to escape their states to get a legal abortion will end up on Medicaid.

These same women will likely need to utilize WIC/ subsidized day care programs/ etc. This won’t be cheap for states either. Many of these women don’t have maternity leave to breastfeed/ pump/ maintain a supply (not that breastfeeding is free… I know because I plopped about $500 into that between supplements, lactation consultants, and carious supplies just for it to completely fail anyway). When I was sourcing formula for moms across the US, some parents mentioned their children can only tolerate certain formulas that cost hundreds each month. And we all know daycare in a lot of areas is insane. It’s not uncommon for parents to have to pay $1500+/ mo depending where they live, with the really expensive places going over $2000/ mo.

These social nets should have been set up beforehand. Not so pro-life to let people suffer…

 

[fel]

These social nets should have been set up beforehand. Not so pro-life to let people suffer…

I visited Romania in 1990, right after the revolution. There were wide-eyed starving, dirty, sickly children everywhere. Every time I bought food, there was a child, sometimes as young as 2, asking for what I bought. I ended up giving away all the food I had. Really tragic.

Backstory: Romania's leader Ceausescu outlawed abortion and birth control and forced women to have children. He was violently overthrown in 1989.

 

[winnietucker]

I visited Romania in 1990, right after the revolution. There were wide-eyed starving, dirty, sickly children everywhere. Every time I bought food, there was a child, sometimes as young as 2, asking for what I bought. I ended up giving away all the food I had. Really tragic.

Backstory: Romania's leader Ceausescu outlawed abortion and birth control and forced women to have children. He was violently overthrown in 1989.

I googled the issue with Romania and it sounds awful… do you think if what happened in Romania was common knowledge in the US, there’d have been a different outcome? I can’t imagine ANYONE seeing that as an example and still thinking a total ban is a good idea.

 

[fel]

I googled the issue with Romania and it sounds awful… do you think if what happened in Romania was common knowledge in the US, there’d have been a different outcome? I can’t imagine ANYONE seeing that as an example and still thinking a total ban is a good idea.

You know it is an interesting question. I do think that these laws being passed are orchestrated to increase the white population. So the plan by some might be to adopt out the white able-bodied babies, and the rest leave to an unprepared foster care system. With modern medical care, we do have the ability to save very premature or disabled infants that would have previously died. These infants become children who need very very high levels of care. In my work I know children who need round the clock intensively trained nurses, children who are unable to sit up or stand, who are intubated, and who are sensory and intellectually impaired. These children cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. I also work with children with severe autism, self-injurous behaviors, seizures and limited to no communication. These children also need round the clock care their entire lifespan.

We will have many many more children like this if we are forcing women who are traumatized by rape/incest/abuse, too young, perhaps sickly or taking meds that are dangerous to a fetus to give birth. For example, epileptic medication can cause birth defects. None of the legislatures passing these laws are considering these policy ramifications. They just listen to Carlson Tucker and make decisions based on his rhetoric.

 

[swingtime]

do you think if what happened in Romania was common knowledge in the US, there’d have been a different outcome? I can’t imagine ANYONE seeing that as an example and still thinking a total ban is a good idea.

The same group that brought us the this decision has also systematically cut the social safety net over the past four decades. And I think their followers would’ve viewed starving Romanian children as another example of the "other." They’re not moved by children who are already living in poverty in the U.S. There’s a pervasive attitude of blame/resentment toward the poor.

 

[Lookinagain]

. For example, epileptic medication can cause birth defects. None of the legislatures passing these laws are considering these policy ramifications.

That's a point I hadn't heard or thought about. Jeez. So if you get pregnant, can't get an abortion, you have to go off meds that you need or risk birth defects by staying on your meds. And I gather going off, and having seizures, could potentially kill both mother and fetus.

 

[stracci2000]

I googled the issue with Romania and it sounds awful… do you think if what happened in Romania was common knowledge in the US, there’d have been a different outcome? I can’t imagine ANYONE seeing that as an example and still thinking a total ban is a good idea.

The Romanian orphanage crisis was common knowledge in the US. There was an exposé on the 20/20 TV show. I personally knew a lady who went to Romania and adopted two siblings.

 

[Gussie]

I've never known "them" to make/amend/repeal laws and not understand the ramifications.

 

[Begonia]

The next time the national anthem is played every woman and girl should take a knee.

E v e r y o n e should take a knee IMO

 

[autumngems]

It's truly sad and came about just as I was watching a series on Netflix (Call the Midwife) set in the 1940-1970s and they are dealing with back alley abortions and women resorting to suicide and such. It's scary that this is what we are back to, back alley abortions.

 

[missy]

 

[Gussie]

It's not all Christians.

Episcopal Church statement on reports concerning Supreme Court case pertaining to abortion​

May 3, 2022
Office of Government Relations
Since 1967, The Episcopal Church has maintained its “unequivocal opposition to any legislation on the part of the national or state governments which would abridge or deny the right of individuals to reach informed decisions [about the termination of pregnancy] and to act upon them.” In light of the recent report about a pending decision in the Supreme Court case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, The Episcopal Church reaffirms our commitment to “equitable access to women’s health care, including women’s reproductive health care,” which we view as “an integral part of a woman’s struggle to assert her dignity and worth as a human being.” The Office of Government Relations will continue to advocate at the federal level to protect reproductive rights.
We encourage you to read this overview of The Episcopal Church’s positions on abortion and women’s reproductive health.

 

[mellowyellowgirl]

Can they reopen this issue again in the Supreme Court or is it done and dusted?

Say if a few of them die (wishful thinking, the ones that need to be dead are likely too young to die, although Alito and Thomas might drop dead if you're lucky) can they review it?