So much for overturning Roe v Wade and saving innocent pre-born babies.

[Lursa]

One of my daughters is an OBGYN the other is a respiratory therapist neonatal.

I'm not arguing whether abortion is correct or not. Roe v Wade was a poor ruling no matter who you are. There's been decades of time to refine the law.

How many abortions has she performed on healthy women of healthy, viable fetuses?

Edit: or how many has she been asked to perform?

 

[weaver2]

I'm not arguing whether abortion is correct or not.

I know you are not. You've decided that Roe was immoral and wrong and taken it from there.

Roe v Wade was a poor ruling no matter who you are.

Not if you are a woman.

There's been decades of time to refine the law.

And by "refine" you mean allowing conservative evangelicals to keep inserting malicious restrictions intended to hurt women, their families and install your morality into the public law.

 

[L88]

Great, ask them to produce the statistics on survival of preemies as whole and functioning babies or if you are reluctant to post the truth I'll post it for you.

You're missing the entire point of my statement. And after a couple posts of yours I'm not surprised.
The ruling the ruling the ruling is weak.
There's been decades to refine and make sure that it was constitutional other than reprioritizing rights.
As far as the window of viability and again you're missing the point that was the ruling from the court. Over time that part of the ruling has been thrown out the window.
Now here's my opinion and it may be wrong or right.
The combination of the ruling not being constitutional on solid ground and the fact that the viability window became ignored is what caused the undoing of roe v wade.
This has been coming for a long time as many congresses have come and gone.

 

[Lursa]

You're missing the entire point of my statement. And after a couple posts of yours I'm not surprised.
The ruling the ruling the ruling is weak.
There's been decades to refine and make sure that it was constitutional other than reprioritizing rights.
As far as the window of viability and again you're missing the point that was the ruling from the court. Over time that part of the ruling has been thrown out the window.
Now here's my opinion and it may be wrong or right.
The combination of the ruling not being constitutional on solid ground and the fact that the viability window became ignored is what caused the undoing of roe v wade.
This has been coming for a long time as many congresses have come and gone.

What rights were "reprioritized?"

 

[JasperL]

I'm old enough to remember the time before Roe v. Wade, when the abortion ban most victimized those without financial means. Back then, the wealthy never had any problem getting safe abortions. They were, in fact, commonplace. There was always the notorious "ski trip to Switzerland" where the wealthy woman, always White, would return home refreshed, rested, lightly tanned, and perhaps a few pounds lighter.

Roe v. Wade was a great equalizer in an inherently racist and unfair environment. Overturning Roe was perhaps among the greatest single events of class and race warfare in several decades. Is it any wonder that Republicans and "conservatives" have fought for it?

Of course the same thing is true today. If you're in the middle class or above, you can get an abortion if you need it because you can likely afford to travel 1 or 3 or 4 states over, stay for a few days. There's likely not a single family member of anyone voting to 'ban' abortions that won't get one if she wants it, because she'll have the means to get it done. Anyone in the orbit of the 6 on SCOTUS who wants an abortion WILL GET IT. It's what makes me angriest about the whole thing. The powerful KNOW abortion restrictions aren't more than a bother to them, if that.

So of course this is targeting the poor. The other victims will be women who have problem pregnancies and doctors won't act in their best interests because the assholes and morons might charge them with a felony, and that doctor might lose everything. Other victims will be women who can't find a qualified OB because the good doctors fled backwards hellholes that want to make medical decisions for women and their doctors, and smart people aren't fans of that, especially when/if the assholes and morons have a different opinion than the doctor and patient about what was needed for that sick woman at that time. How many times will good doctors send a woman home to GET SICKER before they can perform a necessary abortion? I wouldn't think many before they seriously start looking at their options.

 

[JasperL]

Why would abortions be increasing? Only if more reckless behavior is taking place. If you don't want a baby, take the proper prevention to keep it from happening. The left never seems to want to educate people how to prevent unwanted results from their behavior. Let's see kill a baby, keep you pants on. Oh heck, kill the baby.

What in the hell are you talking about? It's the left standing in the way of effective contraception by, checks notes, voting for the ACA that made contraception FREE to women? That made the doctors visits free, increased insurance coverage so that even poor women had basic healthcare covered by insurance. And more...

So of course what you highlight is "the left" not advocating for abstinence as contraception. Well they don't advocate for that because it doesn't work in real life. Women WILL have sex and any plan to avoid unwanted pregnancies that relies on abstinence will fail. It's teaching religion versus actual workable social policy. So, yeah, the left aren't filled with self righteous hypocrites and morons who preach something every data point tells them will fail. Seems like the right call to me.

 

[L88]

What rights were "reprioritized?"

Yeah, well you need to read the ruling on Roe v Wade.
And you're all over the place in your posts.
Who cares what my daughters are asked to do and who really cares what Canada does?

 

[Lursa]

Yeah, well you need to read the ruling on Roe v Wade.

I have, that's why I asked. Can you answer?

And you're all over the place in your posts.

Please dont make this about me to get out of answering. Most of us are not that easily distracted.

Who cares what my daughters are asked to do and who really cares what Canada does?

Because you used her profession in an attempt to establish credibility, that's why. If she's not a resource for relevant information, why did you bring her up?

And Canada is a relevant example but I'm fine if you just directly address what I wrote regarding the several US states. I dont see you doing so...why not?

 

[weaver2]

Yeah, well you need to read the ruling on Roe v Wade.
And you're all over the place in your posts.
Who cares what my daughters are asked to do and who really cares what Canada does?

Everyone you have accused of being all over the place has read Roe many times. The courts had to make the decision about legalizing abortion because the Republicans in Congress wouldn't and the US had 50 different sets of abortions laws creating chaos for the medical profession, for the legal profession, for women, for families and for the children. In addition organized crime was moving into the abortion business in states where it had been outlawed. We are going back to the same situation of 50 different sets of laws. How is this good?

 

[choiceone]

Who's us?
The 24 to 28 week window for viability

In Roe, the viability window began at 26 weeks, I think. PP v Casey gave 24. Most doctors today would use 22, not because of any medical changes in the chance ratio, but because two babies have been born in the world at 21 weeks 6 days and 21 weeks one day - the latter was probably a mistake in estimation of LMP. Hence, we know that this is possible, though the chance ratio is low. But doctors who read about the cases would have been able to evaluate the meaning of the lung sac development necessary for fetal survival in the cases. It's not like we're any better at keeping the premature infants alive earlier.

 

[choiceone]

You're missing the entire point of my statement. And after a couple posts of yours I'm not surprised.
The ruling the ruling the ruling is weak.
There's been decades to refine and make sure that it was constitutional other than reprioritizing rights.
As far as the window of viability and again you're missing the point that was the ruling from the court. Over time that part of the ruling has been thrown out the window.
Now here's my opinion and it may be wrong or right.
The combination of the ruling not being constitutional on solid ground and the fact that the viability window became ignored is what caused the undoing of roe v wade.
This has been coming for a long time as many congresses have come and gone.

It IS Constitutional. The only reasons Dobbs v Jackson said it wasn't are these.

First, four of the six conservative Catholics on the SC, and one conservative justice who had been raised Catholic and had practiced Catholicism till he converted to Anglicism in his late twenties in order to marry a non-Catholic all reasoned from the notion that the Constitution said nothing about a right to abortion.

Then they allowed themselves to use a specific Catholic explanatory point to justify their view.

Next, critiquing a weak point in Roe, that Blackmun relied heavily on two historical research sources because there weren't other good ones, Alito then turned to one historical research source, instead of the many published in the ensuing 49+ years of historical research.

Using this, Alito supplemented it with a clearly biased review of the history of abortion in Europe, ignoring various philosophies and religions and pretty much the entire 18th century in America, so that he could say a right to abortion was not deeply rooted in "our history."

If the decision had looked closely at the 14th Amendment in the careful, nuanced way it should have been treated, Alito would first of all had to address the fact that the issue of women's rights has often led to problems of unconstitutional laws. For example, in the latter 19th century, there was a federal law that deprived American women of American citizenship if they married foreign men ineligible for US naturalization, such as Japanese, Indians, etc. It was enforced until 1929, when the SC found it to be unconstitutional. So for almost 50 years, we enforced a law that contradicted the US Constitution.

In just this way, the state anti-abortion laws of the 19th century clearly contradicted the 4th Amendment right to security of persons and papers from unreasonable searches and seizures. This should have informed any decision made - and Alito ignored this for his shallow "no right to abortion" thing. Of course there's no right to abortion - everything depends on the doctor's right to offer an abortion but also his/her right to decline to offer one based on freedom of conscience.

One reason why Dobbs is so disgraceful is that Roe was a 7 to 2 ruling and it was argued before the SC twice, because the first time they only had 8 justices. Dobbs, by contrast, was only argued once and wasn't even a 6 to 3 ruling, because Roberts refused to sign on to anything but the 15 week limit Dobbs suggested.

This was a total mockery of the justice system and the Constitution.

 

[L88]

It IS Constitutional. The only reasons Dobbs v Jackson said it wasn't are these.

First, four of the six conservative Catholics on the SC, and one conservative justice who had been raised Catholic and had practiced Catholicism till he converted to Anglicism in his late twenties in order to marry a non-Catholic all reasoned from the notion that the Constitution said nothing about a right to abortion.

Then they allowed themselves to use a specific Catholic explanatory point to justify their view.

Next, critiquing a weak point in Roe, that Blackmun relied heavily on two historical research sources because there weren't other good ones, Alito then turned to one historical research source, instead of the many published in the ensuing 49+ years of historical research.

Using this, Alito supplemented it with a clearly biased review of the history of abortion in Europe, ignoring various philosophies and religions and pretty much the entire 18th century in America, so that he could say a right to abortion was not deeply rooted in "our history."

If the decision had looked closely at the 14th Amendment in the careful, nuanced way it should have been treated, Alito would first of all had to address the fact that the issue of women's rights has often led to problems of unconstitutional laws. For example, in the latter 19th century, there was a federal law that deprived American women of American citizenship if they married foreign men ineligible for US naturalization, such as Japanese, Indians, etc. It was enforced until 1929, when the SC found it to be unconstitutional. So for almost 50 years, we enforced a law that contradicted the US Constitution.

In just this way, the state anti-abortion laws of the 19th century clearly contradicted the 4th Amendment right to security of persons and papers from unreasonable searches and seizures. This should have informed any decision made - and Alito ignored this for his shallow "no right to abortion" thing. Of course there's no right to abortion - everything depends on the doctor's right to offer an abortion but also his/her right to decline to offer one based on freedom of conscience.

One reason why Dobbs is so disgraceful is that Roe was a 7 to 2 ruling and it was argued before the SC twice, because the first time they only had 8 justices. Dobbs, by contrast, was only argued once and wasn't even a 6 to 3 ruling, because Roberts refused to sign on to anything but the 15 week limit Dobbs suggested.

This was a total mockery of the justice system and the Constitution.

Roe v Wade was on weak ground to begin with but when some states evolved beyond gestational restrictions it enlarged the population of resistance. Rove v Wade is based on a reprioritization of rights for a period of time. That's just not going to work under our constitution without an amendment.

The Court created a framework to balance the state's interests with privacy rights. Acknowledging that the rights of pregnant people may conflict with the rights of the state to protect potential human life, the Court defined the rights of each party by dividing pregnancy into three 12-week trimesters

• During a pregnant person's first trimester, the Court held, a state cannot regulate abortion beyond requiring that the procedure be performed by a licensed doctor in medically safe conditions.
• During the second trimester, the Court held that a state may regulate abortion if the regulations are reasonably related to the health of the pregnant person.
• During the third trimester of pregnancy, the state's interest in protecting the potential human life outweighs the right to privacy. As a result, the state may prohibit abortions unless an abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the pregnant person.

Many think of Roe v. Wade as the case that "legalized abortion." However, that isn't exactly true. What it did was change the way states can regulate abortion, and characterized abortion as something that was covered under constitutional rights of privacy.

Roe v. Wade Case Summary: What You Need to Know - FindLaw

One of the Supreme Court's most famous cases, Roe v. Wade changed the way states can regulate abortion services by establishing new privacy rights for women. Learn more about this influential case on FindLaw's Supreme Court Insights.

supreme.findlaw.com

 

[j brown's body]

Roe v Wade was on weak ground to begin with but when some states evolved beyond gestational restrictions it enlarged the population of resistance. Rove v Wade is based on a reprioritization of rights for a period of time. That's just not going to work under our constitution without an amendment.

The Court created a framework to balance the state's interests with privacy rights. Acknowledging that the rights of pregnant people may conflict with the rights of the state to protect potential human life, the Court defined the rights of each party by dividing pregnancy into three 12-week trimesters

• During a pregnant person's first trimester, the Court held, a state cannot regulate abortion beyond requiring that the procedure be performed by a licensed doctor in medically safe conditions.
• During the second trimester, the Court held that a state may regulate abortion if the regulations are reasonably related to the health of the pregnant person.
• During the third trimester of pregnancy, the state's interest in protecting the potential human life outweighs the right to privacy. As a result, the state may prohibit abortions unless an abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the pregnant person.

Many think of Roe v. Wade as the case that "legalized abortion." However, that isn't exactly true. What it did was change the way states can regulate abortion, and characterized abortion as something that was covered under constitutional rights of privacy.

Roe v. Wade Case Summary: What You Need to Know - FindLaw

One of the Supreme Court's most famous cases, Roe v. Wade changed the way states can regulate abortion services by establishing new privacy rights for women. Learn more about this influential case on FindLaw's Supreme Court Insights.

supreme.findlaw.com

It established a right for women to control their own bodies. The Dobbs ruling, for the first time in American history, rescinded a right it had affirmed. And had affirmed more than once.

 

[L88]

Everyone you have accused of being all over the place has read Roe many times. The courts had to make the decision about legalizing abortion because the Republicans in Congress wouldn't and the US had 50 different sets of abortions laws creating chaos for the medical profession, for the legal profession, for women, for families and for the children. In addition organized crime was moving into the abortion business in states where it had been outlawed. We are going back to the same situation of 50 different sets of laws. How is this good?

There were different laws in different states. And as your 2nd sentence clearly states the court legislated from the bench. That is not under their purview.

The following is my opinion to a solution.
I'm not the one to write it but you are going have to have an amendment with something to the effect that the rights of personhood do not apply from conception to the 24th week. And it would be proper to have an amendment that reads something like, medical procedures to save a life, correct a condition from an unlawful act, or abuse, can not be prohibited.

 

[L88]

It established a right for women to control their own bodies. The Dobbs ruling, for the first time in American history, rescinded a right it had affirmed. And had affirmed more than once.

Roe, allowed the right to privacy to exceed the right to life for 24 weeks. That's pretty weak constitutionally.

 

[roguenuke]

Who's us?
The 24 to 28 week window for viability

Was always meant to be a restriction about where states could not limit abortion, not where states had to limit abortion to. That was about recognizing women's rights were above states' claims to having an interest in the fetus, especially prior to viability.

 

[roguenuke]

Roe, allowed the right to privacy to exceed the right to life for 24 weeks. That's pretty weak constitutionally.

Because right to life applies to those who are born and never is above another person's life to bodily autonomy, hence why you can take someone's life for trying to do harm, be inside your body.

 

[roguenuke]

You're missing the entire point of my statement. And after a couple posts of yours I'm not surprised.
The ruling the ruling the ruling is weak.
There's been decades to refine and make sure that it was constitutional other than reprioritizing rights.
As far as the window of viability and again you're missing the point that was the ruling from the court. Over time that part of the ruling has been thrown out the window.
Now here's my opinion and it may be wrong or right.
The combination of the ruling not being constitutional on solid ground and the fact that the viability window became ignored is what caused the undoing of roe v wade.
This has been coming for a long time as many congresses have come and gone.

What part of the viability window was being ignored in Roe? Explain exactly what you mean. It sounds like you are claiming that it was being ignored because states were allowed to decide they didn't have any interest in unborn, prioritizing rights of a woman over that of the unborn, despite other states prioritizing unborn over rights of women after that viability point. The point of Roe was always that some states could prioritize women's rights above the unborn, yet others could claim an interest in the rights of a fetus over women's rights at that point of viability.

 

[roguenuke]

There were different laws in different states. And as your 2nd sentence clearly states the court legislated from the bench. That is not under their purview.

The following is my opinion to a solution.
I'm not the one to write it but you are going have to have an amendment with something to the effect that the rights of personhood do not apply from conception to the 24th week. And it would be proper to have an amendment that reads something like, medical procedures to save a life, correct a condition from an unlawful act, or abuse, can not be prohibited.

No. It would be proper to recognize that no one has a right to use the body of another for their purposes, including to live off of, without ongoing permission.

 

[Gordy327]

There were different laws in different states. And as your 2nd sentence clearly states the court legislated from the bench. That is not under their purview.

The following is my opinion to a solution.
I'm not the one to write it but you are going have to have an amendment with something to the effect that the rights of personhood do not apply from conception to the 24th week. And it would be proper to have an amendment that reads something like, medical procedures to save a life, correct a condition from an unlawful act, or abuse, can not be prohibited.

Personhood does not apply from conception to birth, per both the Constitution and Federal law.

 

[Lursa]

Roe, allowed the right to privacy to exceed the right to life for 24 weeks. That's pretty weak constitutionally.

There is no right to life (or any rights) recognized federally for the unborn. Or, please provide a source that states this.

A state's interest in protecting something is not based on that entity having rights. States protect forests, wildlife, coral reefs, livestock, etc. None of those things have rights.

 

[weaver2]

There were different laws in different states. And as your 2nd sentence clearly states the court legislated from the bench. That is not under their purview.

It's quite possible that you weren't interested in or following the abortion situation in the 1970s but it was chaotic, getting worse, required immediate intervention and Republicans in Congress absolutely wouldn't address it or the contraceptive issue.

In most states with strict abortion bans they also required women's contraceptives to be available by prescription only which required at least 2 medical appointments. Condoms had to be asked for at the prescription counter. Connecticut still had an outright ban on all contraceptives. In other states the laws both abortion and contraceptive were being ignored or flaunted . Abortion was rapidly becoming an organized illegal business and the numbers of illegal abortions were increasing yearly in all states.

In desperation women's groups got the abortion issue to the SC. The SC decision was accepted by all states and all religions except for extreme anti-women states in the South and the Catholic church. The Southern Baptists, the major and leading evangelical denomination in the US wrote a letter to their congregants praising the SC's ruling.

In 1973 the SC ruling was considered a well thought out, fair, logical, sensible decision that left the states free to make their own laws when, in the 3rd trimester, the state had a vested interest in preserving healthy, physically intact, viable fetuses. Only a few states called the SC's decision prohibited lawmaking and called Roe unconstitutional

Abortion didn't become a contentious issue over women's rights and state's rights and until Paul Weyrich and Jerry Falwell made it an issue. Look it up:

The man who knew abortion could divide America and how his 50-year plan is paying off

There was a time in the United States when abortion wasn't so political, but one strategist believed it could be a potent issue that would ultimately deliver conservatives power.

www.abc.net.au

 

[weaver2]

I'm not the one to write it but you are going have to have an amendment with something to the effect that the rights of personhood do not apply from conception to the 24th week. And it would be proper to have an amendment that reads something like, medical procedures to save a life, correct a condition from an unlawful act, or abuse, can not be prohibited.

You are right. That's what we should have. But, look at the history of women's rights in the US and you'll understand why we don't have intelligent abortion laws. It starts with people like Phyllis Schlafly and goes straight through the defeat of the ERA, Paul Weyrich's long game, Jerry Falwell, talk radio James Dobson, US conservative evangelism Lila Rose and funding by The Church.

 

[weaver2]

Many think of Roe v. Wade as the case that "legalized abortion." However, that isn't exactly true. What it did was change the way states can regulate abortion, and characterized abortion as something that was covered under constitutional rights of privacy.

There is the sticking point. Conservatives are fighting against that right being extended extended yet insist on that right for themselves in reporting income, in ownership of guns, for answering questions on the census, for financial disclosures, in their children's education. family interactions, sex, child rearing techniques, consumption of drugs and alcohol, the list of things extreme conservatives say is none of anyone's business is almost endless. But women's freedom to control their reproductive lives and their future ........... nope....... women can't be trusted to be honest and moral.

 

[mrjurrs]

There were different laws in different states. And as your 2nd sentence clearly states the court legislated from the bench. That is not under their purview.

The following is my opinion to a solution.
I'm not the one to write it but you are going have to have an amendment with something to the effect that the rights of personhood do not apply from conception to the 24th week. And it would be proper to have an amendment that reads something like, medical procedures to save a life, correct a condition from an unlawful act, or abuse, can not be prohibited.

There are no personhood rights in America.