ChiGoose

It means that if you’re pregnant and then not pregnant, you can be investigated for an abortion. Which is why everyone should delete their period tracking apps.

Everyone knew they were lying at the time. Collins and Manchin are fools.

They are. And who’s gonna stop them?

Something I've noticed is that some people only see things through the lens of winning or losing, not principles. You see that with people claiming the Jan 6th committee is a plot to influence the midterms, which would be very dumb because the midterms are too far away. If that was the actual plan, they would have started in September and ran through October. There's obviously value in creating a historical record of what led to the events on Jan 6th and what happened that day, regardless of whether or not it helps a particular party. But to believe that, you need to value things beyond your side winning. So when you see posts about the committee failing, or not moving the needle for the election, I think it's just because those people cannot see a reason for action other than personal or political gain. Who is winning the horse race? That's all that matters to them. If the GOP is still expected to win in the midterms, it must mean the committee is meaningless.

Funnily enough, Roe v. Wade was decided on similar privacy grounds as Obergfell v. Hodges, Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Loving v. Virginia. In his concurrence, Thomas stated that they should look at cases to revisit all of those except Loving v. Virginia.

Originalism is the idea that the justices can know with certainty what the founders intended about any issue, and therefore any precedent that contradicts it should be overturned. So justices get to ask themselves questions like "What did the founders think about airplane regulations?" come to a conclusion and write that decision. It's an easy way to decide the issue however you want and them make up a reason to support your decision. Under originalism, we would never have had Brown v. Board of Education. You may be thinking of textualism, which is to simply focus on the plain meaning of the text. It's a legit method of constitutional interpretation but is often confused with originalism. Traditional judicial precedent interpretation takes into account the constitution, the law in question, as well as the history of the law as applied to the facts of the case. It promotes stability of the law as opposed to the quickly changing law we find ourselves in with an originalist court.

Originalism is a bunk jurisprudence.

Maybe it should be left to the states?

We're basically in a race to see if Boomers can install permanent minority rule before they die off and lose power. I think we're losing.

Because it's about control.

Thanks, and that's why I wanted to point it out. Our public discourse on abortions generally just assumes we are talking about unwanted pregnancies and that the laws are super clear and only impact those cases. The reality is much more complicated. Ideally, I would not have the government intervene in medical care and instead let the patient and their doctor make the best decision they can. That is going to be much more difficult for pregnancies moving forward with Roe and Casey being struck down. Abortions are a difficult, traumatic, and awful thing. I wish we would focus on proven methods to prevent unwanted pregnancies such as comprehensive sex ed and easy access to contraceptives. And to make it easier for people in difficult positions trying to decide what to do, I wish we had pro-natalist policies like affordable healthcare, parental leave, and affordable (or even free) childcare. Those kinds of things would reduce abortions for unwanted pregnancies (because there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies) and reduce abortions for poor and struggling people by providing them help to ensure that they will be able to afford and keep their baby. But the actual medical decision? The government should have no place there.

They did lie and every person in the world knew they were lying at the time except Susan Collins and Joe Manchin. Reversing Roe is not pointless because it'll get abortion banned in a good number, if not mot, states without a nationwide ban (which has a higher bar to clear). So it's a big win for the anti-choice movement. Many animals eat their own babies.

I think you're see strong movements for a nationwide ban should the GOP control all three branches. Also, I would not be surprised for SCOTUS to go after Obergfell v. Hodges, Lawrence v. Texas, and even Connecticut v. Griswold.

I assume the people advocating for fetal personage based on Christianity are also for banning pork, shellfish, tattoos, and wearing mixed fabrics.

I wish you were right. I would suggest you start talking to people in the medical profession and reading the actual laws. What you're saying seems like common sense but it's not actually how medicine and law work. In the meantime, here are some real world examples of how different abortion laws impact care for miscarriage: In Texas: In Michigan: In Poland: In Ireland: Some more info: Bloomberg: Women jailed for a miscarriage:

Methods of abortion: methotrexate, mifepristone, D&C, D&E, etc. Treatment for miscarriage: methotrexate, mifepristone, D&C, D&E, etc. @B-Man: these are completely different things.

They will not be required to, it all depends on how they want to write the laws. And from what I've seen, many of the people writing these laws are not exactly the brightest people.

If you think overturning Roe and banning abortions is about having more babies, then you're not paying attention. And as I have pointed out elsewhere, this can have dire consequences for women who have miscarriages. If people really wanted to reduce the number of abortions, there are proven methods for that. Banning abortions is not one of them, but reducing the number of abortions isn't the point for them anyway.

Well for one, because one would hope that women would have access to proper healthcare regardless of which state they were in. And for another, states like mine are now going to have to provide services to people from other states, in effect subsidizing them. Decisions in some states can have impacts on people in other states.

There are proven ways to reduce the numbers of abortions, but "pro-life" advocates generally oppose them in favor of banning abortion. Truly pro-life would be advocating for pro-natalist policies (which would likely find decent bipartisan support). Banning abortion will not end abortions, it'll just make them less safe. Hard to argue that cruelty isn't the point.

Here is an article outlining it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/abortion-state-laws-criminalization-roe/ 13 states with trigger laws will ban abortion shortly. 5 states likely will ban abortion soon

Illinois is already prepping to service the midwest and Texas. Just another example of blue states subsidizing red states.

As someone who has had to unfortunately become intimately familiar with all of this over the last couple of years, I am going to try to spell this out as clearly as I can. Medically, there is little difference between an abortion and treatment for a miscarriage. Depending on how far along, it might be a pill or a shot like methotrexate, or it might be D&C or D&E. In fact, when you have severe bleeding in a pregnancy and go to the ER only to find everything is still fine, your paperwork will read "threatened abortion." A miscarriage is labeled "spontaneous abortion." When you have a miscarriage, doctors generally suggest one of these methods because the other option is to wait and hope the body expels the fetus and tissue. This risks the mother going septic and potentially dying. A simple procedure is preferable to that risk. Legally, it all depends on how the laws are written. Under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the law required an exception for the life or health of the mother. So someone who is pregnant but the fetus dies or stops developing is able to get the proper care because without it, they could go septic. Now that Roe and Casey are overturned, there is no such requirement nationally. States can absolutely enact full abortion bans with no exceptions. This will mean that doctors may not be able to provide treatment for miscarriages until the mother starts suffering from something like sepsis. Or they may make the law vague enough that doctors are unsure of what they can or cannot do, and side on the edge of caution and reject treatment. We've already seen this in Texas since their new abortion law was enacted. Depending on how the laws are written, it may make providing abortion care so difficult and risky, the abortion providers just shut down, leaving people with few to no options. The immediate pushback to this is that states won't pass those kinds of laws. I would love for that to be the case. But like I said, we've already seen doctors in Texas unsure if they can provide care in certain instances of miscarriage. Also, we've seen idiotic attempts like a proposed law in Ohio that would require ectopic pregnancies (pregnancies in the fallopian tube that can cause a rupture and kill the mother are treated with an abortion) to be re-implanted, a procedure that does not exist. Thankfully, that did not pass. But we also see in countries with very strict abortion laws that women die from miscarriage because they cannot get the proper treatment. With today's decision, there is absolutely nothing stopping states from passing similar laws. So when I said that I am happy I live in Illinois, it's because we have laws here that protect my wife and if we lost another pregnancy, she would have no problem getting the help she needs. Soon, women in many states will likely not have that safety.

1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage and the proper treatment for a miscarriage is an abortion. My wife has had several miscarriages and it was easy to get her the care she needed. Without Roe and Casey, there is nothing stopping a state from banning abortions outright, with no exceptions. People in Poland are dying because of their abortion ban today.

Up next: Contraceptives Same Sex Marriage Same Sex Relationships