Abortion Rights Are Reshaping American Politics

[Gordy327]

It's rightly viewed as a conflict of rights, conceptually no different than when freedom of speech lunges into slander or libel.

Nope. There is a big difference.

 

[NatMorton]

Nope. There is a big difference.

You can deny it all you like, but where fetal rights have been established within a jurisdiction a conflict of rights is exactly what happens. You're making the same mistake as weaver2: because you don't agree a fetus should have any rights you pretend those rights don't -- and can't --- exist anywhere. Your thinking is simply wrong.

 

[Gordy327]

You can deny it all you like, but where fetal rights have been established within a jurisdiction a conflict of rights is exactly what happens. You're making the same mistake as weaver2: because you don't agree a fetus should have any rights you pretend those rights don't -- and can't --- exist anywhere. Your thinking is simply wrong.

Those rights don't exist, despite certain states attempts to establish them on some level.

 

[NatMorton]

Those rights don't exist, despite certain states attempts to establish them on some level.

Your ability to deny reality is impressive.

 

[Gordy327]

Your ability to deny reality is impressive.

Not nearly as impressive as your ability to make up a reality, like fetal rights.

 

[NatMorton]

Not nearly as impressive as your ability to make up a reality, like fetal rights.

I cited the law that literally says that.

I'm not sure you're ready for life outside the echo chamber, FWIW.

 

[NatMorton]

In case you thought my above post was only parody ...

 

[MAGAnificent]

Four Justices of our US Supreme Court tried to take away Abortion Rights by overturning Roe v Wade

If you think anything was taken away, you can blame those who filed a lawsuit against the Stater of Mississippi over their abortion law. Without that lawsuit, Roe V Wade would still be standing.

but individual States are now making Abortions a part of their State Constitution .

Any power not relegated to the Federal Government goes to the states. That's the way it should be. Unless you want to seek a constitutional amendment on the issue of abortion, your fight is at the state level.

The midterm election results look like a striking rebuke of the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and the wave of near-total abortion bans that followed it.

If that were the case, there would have been a blue wave and the democrats would have kept control of the House. At best They might gain one seat in the Senate if Warnock wins in Georgia. Not much of a rebuke.

 

[Scrabaholic]

A rather dogmatic and politically extreme perspective, but you're entitled to it.

Extreme, my arse. Is it extreme to let the patient decide whether to have an appendectomy? Breast implants? Tubal ligation?

 

[weaver2]

No, I kept saying (and still do) that it's an expression of legislative intent. Those who wrote and ratified that law clearly believed they were declaring a fetus a legal person in Alabama, with rights. To deny that is, IMO, gibberish.

The title of a bill is not necessarily an expression of legislative intent; in fact it may simply be a distraction from the actual purpose of the bill. Misleading titles have become a problem. The title of the Alabama act is misleading.

In Congress, the name of a bill may have nothing to do with what’s in it – it’s all about salesmanship

In Congress, the name of a bill may have nothing to do with what’s in it – it’s all about salesmanship

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 bill in Congress may reduce inflation. Or it may not. What it will do is add to the long history of legislation names aimed at drumming up support for a bill.

theconversation.com

Contemporary (bill) titles are often capriciously worded, employing a range of colorful language that may or may not relate to a law’s substance.

SCOTUS Short Title Turmoil: Time for a Congressional Bill Naming Authority | Yale Law & Policy Review

ylpr.yale.edu

This new generation of attack titles is ratcheting up the gamesmanship among lawmakers in both parties who are vying to make their bills stand out from the thousands introduced every year.

Congress turns bill titles into acts of exaggeration

Congress turns bill titles into acts of exaggeration

www.latimes.com

LETTER: Deceptive bill names used by both parties

The most costly bill ever pushed through neither protects nor is affordable

www.app.com

Laws Deserve More Than Those Cute Names (Published 2013)

Calling legislation the Dream Act, the U.S.A. Patriot Act or the Defense of Marriage Act can cheapen and distort the legal process with their focus-group-tested language.

www.nytimes.com

6 bills with great-sounding names that actually aren’t so great - Washington Examiner

One of the more creative things that members of Congress get to do is name their bills. Sometimes the names are straight up boring — as in the “Reserve Retirement Deployment Credit Correction Act” — and thus make staying awake while reading them an achievement. Other times though, congressmen...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

The title of the Alabama bill does not relate to the actual stated purpose of the bill. Why ... because the title is meant to be used later in attacking those campaigning against the bill. If you name a bill "The Alabama Human Life Protection Act." proponants of the bill can declare opponants are against protecting life and babies and for killings and death. It's an effective campaign technique.

Here is the stated purpose of the act copied from the act itself.
"SYNOPSIS
This bill would make abortion and attempted abortion felony offenses except in cases where abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother.
This bill would provide that a woman who receives an abortion will not be held criminally culpable or civilly liable for receiving the abortion."

The bill, as written re-states the purpose in this section
"A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT Relating to abortion; to make abortion and attempted abortion felony offenses except in cases where abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother; to provide that a woman who receives an abortion will not be held criminally culpable or civilly liable for receiving the abortion"

You have quoted the findings section of the bill as proof that the bill's purpose is to declare legal rights for fetuses, however I believe in past threads you have stated that the findings in Roe v Wade are not law, not relevant and much of the the SC 'Findings' are not true.

 

[NatMorton]

Extreme, my arse. Is it extreme to let the patient decide whether to have an appendectomy? Breast implants? Tubal ligation?

Yes, extreme. I was speaking about abortion law. Only a fringe minority wants no restrictions on abortion whatsoever.

 

[NatMorton]

The title of a bill is not necessarily an expression of legislative intent; in fact it may simply be a distraction from the actual purpose of the bill. Misleading titles have become a problem. The title of the Alabama act is misleading.

In Congress, the name of a bill may have nothing to do with what’s in it – it’s all about salesmanship

In Congress, the name of a bill may have nothing to do with what’s in it – it’s all about salesmanship

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 bill in Congress may reduce inflation. Or it may not. What it will do is add to the long history of legislation names aimed at drumming up support for a bill.

theconversation.com

Contemporary (bill) titles are often capriciously worded, employing a range of colorful language that may or may not relate to a law’s substance.

SCOTUS Short Title Turmoil: Time for a Congressional Bill Naming Authority | Yale Law & Policy Review

ylpr.yale.edu

This new generation of attack titles is ratcheting up the gamesmanship among lawmakers in both parties who are vying to make their bills stand out from the thousands introduced every year.

Congress turns bill titles into acts of exaggeration

Congress turns bill titles into acts of exaggeration

www.latimes.com

LETTER: Deceptive bill names used by both parties

The most costly bill ever pushed through neither protects nor is affordable

www.app.com

Laws Deserve More Than Those Cute Names (Published 2013)

Calling legislation the Dream Act, the U.S.A. Patriot Act or the Defense of Marriage Act can cheapen and distort the legal process with their focus-group-tested language.

www.nytimes.com

6 bills with great-sounding names that actually aren’t so great - Washington Examiner

One of the more creative things that members of Congress get to do is name their bills. Sometimes the names are straight up boring — as in the “Reserve Retirement Deployment Credit Correction Act” — and thus make staying awake while reading them an achievement. Other times though, congressmen...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

The title of the Alabama bill does not relate to the actual stated purpose of the bill. Why ... because the title is meant to be used later in attacking those campaigning against the bill. If you name a bill "The Alabama Human Life Protection Act." proponants of the bill can declare opponants are against protecting life and babies and for killings and death. It's an effective campaign technique.

Here is the stated purpose of the act copied from the act itself.
"SYNOPSIS
This bill would make abortion and attempted abortion felony offenses except in cases where abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother.
This bill would provide that a woman who receives an abortion will not be held criminally culpable or civilly liable for receiving the abortion."

The bill, as written re-states the purpose in this section
"A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT Relating to abortion; to make abortion and attempted abortion felony offenses except in cases where abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother; to provide that a woman who receives an abortion will not be held criminally culpable or civilly liable for receiving the abortion"

You have quoted the findings section of the bill as proof that the bill's purpose is to declare legal rights for fetuses, however I believe in past threads you have stated that the findings in Roe v Wade are not law, not relevant and much of the the SC 'Findings' are not true.

Excellent, let’s test that hypothesis.

When the AL legislature named the bill “The Human Life Protection Act,” what do you think their intent could have been if not to declare a fetus a human with a right to life?

 

[weaver2]

Then you're in no position to say, as you did, "But no state has declared a fetus to be a person" when some clearly have.

You are right. At least three states have clearly introduced legislation in which the findings include legal rights for a fetus. Alabama has gone throughthe legislative motions of signing a bill into law. However, the law has not been enforced and as Gov. Ivey said, "....may be unenforcable". It is being challenged by the ACLU and PP.

The Missouri law SB 699 "Abolition of Abortion in Missouri Act" is apparently dead in committee. It also includes findings that the fetus is a person with legal rights

Georgia’s 2019 law, officially titled the Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act, HB 481 is currently blocked while the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals hears an appeal of a federal judge’s ruling striking down the law.
Georgia's law is different from AL's and MO's. It encodes into Georgia law fetal personhood.

The exact status of bills on the internet is hard to find and the status given above may be out of date. However, the status of fetal personhood within each bill is correct. Only Georgia has encoded personhood into law.

You really need to get past the idea that those with differing opinions believe as they do because they are somehow evil. It's a perspective that is both excessively emotional and, frankly, childish.

Childish? Apparently you believe the Republican dichotomy of denying poor women highly effective contraceptives and then banning abortion is logical and the resulting tragedy of unplanned and unwanted children acceptable. There is no rational argument for what the Republican party is officially supporting and when an entire political party knowingly creates abuse and violence against children what should we call it, but evil.

 

[weaver2]

You can deny it all you like, but where fetal rights have been established within a jurisdiction a conflict of rights is exactly what happens. You're making the same mistake as weaver2: because you don't agree a fetus should have any rights you pretend those rights don't -- and can't --- exist anywhere. Your thinking is simply wrong.

I've not pretended that fetal personhood doesn't or can't exist. I've said there are no laws establishing fetal personhood and there weren't until Georgia encoded fetal personhood. I've derided the idea of personhood for the stages of zygote through embry when even Ivy League sutdents that ace all their biology courses (but apparently not their botony courses) don't know there is very little difference between the zygote stage of an angiosperm and a zebra. I've pointed out the legal, economic, social and ethical complications once a state encodes fetal personhood and I've vigorously stated what happens to already born children when the fetus is more highly valued than they are. I have noted the majority of people that are legislating fetal personhood and banning abortion are old, white, conservative, evangelical males and wondered at their obsessive interest in young and poor childbearing females. But I have never said the rights couldn't exist. They obviously can.

 

[weaver2]

Excellent, let’s test that hypothesis.

When the AL legislature named the bill “The Human Life Protection Act,” what do you think their intent could have been if not to declare a fetus a human with a right to life?

Their intent was to criminalize abortion. They stated that in the bill. I'll post it again for you. This is a direct quote from Alabama HB 621 "A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT Relating to abortion; to make abortion and attempted abortion felony offenses except in cases where abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother; to provide that a woman who receives an abortion will not be held criminally culpable or civilly liable for receiving the abortion"

You need to stop instructing others about the legislative process and interpretation of law and talk to a constitutional lawyer.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Yes, extreme. I was speaking about abortion law. Only a fringe minority wants no restrictions on abortion whatsoever.

Please answer my question.

 

[iguanaman]

The voters are displeased by having the choice of what their laws should be?

No they are displeased at having their rights removed by a religious majority on the Supreme court. We are not a theocracy.

 

[Bodecea]

The title of this correct but we could and maybe very well should add the word …..again.

Four Justices of our US Supreme Court tried to take away Abortion Rights by overturning Roe v Wade but individual States are now making Abortions a part of their State Constitution .

From FiveThirtyEight:

:https://apple.news/AZ6MfGJ5kSWWgMLgRml0h3A

In June, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and the court’s ultra-conservative majority wrote that they were sending the issue of abortion back to the voters. The voters are displeased.


The midterm election results look like a striking rebuke of the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and the wave of near-total abortion bans that followed it.

The Republican dogs caught the car they were chasing and now they don't know what to do with it.

 

[Josie]

No they are displeased at having their rights removed by a religious majority on the Supreme court. We are not a theocracy.

Are abortion rights removed in states where elective abortions are illegal after viability?

 

[iguanaman]

Are abortion rights removed in states where elective abortions are illegal after viability?

I believe Roe had that covered for 50 years. No point in relitigating it since that is no longer law. You just want to distract us from the real problems the unconstitutional State bans are causing. Pay attention to this instead...

Texas Woman Nearly Loses Her Life After Doctors Can't Legally Perform an Abortion: 'Their Hands Were Tied'​

https://people.com/health/texas-wom...fter-doctors-cannot-legally-perform-abortion/

 

[Josie]

I believe Roe had that covered for 50 years. No point in relitigating it since that is no longer law.

Except the viability laws for elective abortions are still in place in many states. In those states, have women lost their abortion rights?

 

[Crovax]

No they are displeased at having their rights removed by a religious majority on the Supreme court. We are not a theocracy.

Can you point to the wording in the majority decision that says it was based on religion?

 

[weaver2]

It's nobody else's business but the pregnant person's.

You have to wonder why so many old, past prime, white, conservative, mostly religious males are so very interested in managing the reproductive lives of young, fertile, women. Creepy isn't the word for it.

 

[Josie]

You have to wonder why so many old, past prime, white, conservative, mostly religious males are so very interested in managing the reproductive lives of young, fertile, women. Creepy isn't the word for it.

What about the women who are pro-life? Is that creepy?

 

[iguanaman]

Can you point to the wording in the majority decision that says it was based on religion?

There is no need for "wording" the makeup of the majority is proof enough. Or highest court is now under the control of the Pope. God help us.