s/o You can get birth control online

[Murphy101]

On 5/9/2022 at 8:57 AM, Pam in CT said:

re saying the quiet part out loud

Right.

Every version of Great Replacement Theory-fueled fascism since the dawn of recorded history has been preoccupied with ensuring an ample supply of the Right Kind of babies.

The leaked draft opinion is dated Feb 10; I'm sure that particular footnote has subsequently been cleaned up by the other majority justices; and the final version when it is formally issued will be a bit more politic.

But there it is.

 

(The "white" is silent.)

This may get me piled on but…

I do not think ANY babies EVER should be relinquished at birth to one month.  Ideally that SHOULD be nearly zero.

The answer to women in trauma and the answer to women in dire need of help should not have as a first step that they have their babies PERMANENTLY taken from them, either by force or coercing due to dire circumstances.  The first step is to remove as many impediments to mothers having and caring for their babies themselves as possible.  No matter what, some will just not want to keep their babies but the natural occurrence should not be commonplace.  

One month is really not that long to come to grips with parenting, especially for the first time.

And there’s ethical qualms with adopting out of country too.

I’m certainly pro adoption, when bio parents can’t or won’t take care of their children in basic needs. But the FIRST step to “helping” families should never be to tear them apart as fast as possible.

Edited May 11, 2022 by Murphy101

[Pam in CT]

4 minutes ago, lewelma said:

There is something I would like to discuss. People keep saying that the supreme court is super conservative on abortion, but they seem to me to be conservative on constitutional law.  Let the States do what they want. They are not passing laws to restrict abortion, they are letting States decide either pro or con. They are not striking down pro-abortion laws like in NY.  Now the two views (abortion rights and constitutional law) may be confounded in some judges like Alito and Thomas (or all 5), but seems to me that their ruling is not exactly anti abortion.  The state legislatures passing the laws are clearly anti abortion. I think this is an important distinction, because if it were just anti-abortion, then we wouldn't have to worry about all the other previous rulings they are likely to reconsider (gay marriage, interracial marriage etc). Seems like a conservative constitutional law approach is more dangerous. But it is founded in an intellectual argument.  My dad (the pro choice religious surgeon) feels like the legislature should be the ones passing the laws or amending the constitution (as they are elected) and the supreme court has overstepped for the past 50 years by basically legislating outside of the constitution (because they are not elected). He feels like a conservative constitutional law approach is the valid one.

I'm not in this to pick a fight. Happy to hear what people have to say, so please don't 'shout' at me. 

Well, SCOTUS hasn't *had the chance* to strike down any of the laws protecting the choice to have an abortion in states like NY or CT because *no such law has yet been challenged / appealed / wended its way up to them.*  Nor can that process begin, before Roe is formally overturned.

There is no federally legislated right to choose abortion. Once Roe is overturned, there will be no right to privacy from government intrusions into medical decisionmaking either. So once Roe is overturned, it is *certain* that blue-state protections will be challenged.  Last week my state passed legislation that protects medical providers who provide care to out-of-state patients, including a provision to protect providers from interstate extradition in the event that states in which the care they provide here, is illegal there, seek to prosecute them. I believe this is the first such legislation of its kind for medical care (analogies have been drawn to the Fugitive Slave Act).

We don't know how the courts will rule viz. "states' rights."  We can be pretty sure that such state laws will be challenged, however.

[lewelma]

12 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

The inconvenient truth is that BUT FOR the right to privacy upon which birth control access, interracial marriage, abortion, same sex marriage, and MANY other rights rest (they weren’t decided on equal protection grounds), this would be a VERY different, less open and free nation. Half (or more) of the country would happily trade those rights away because they don’t feel like they need them or affect them if lost. There’s never been a time in American history when rights were REMOVED from people vs expanded/broadened but that’s where we are.

The states rights argument is also DEEPLY fraught because it’s historically tied to the argument that states are/should be free to allow the trade of, sale and enslavement of humans by virtue of their genealogy/skin color. That right, also, was not enumerated in tbe constitution and yet, even conservatives EVENTUALLY (it took them over a century) realized it as antithetical given the totality of the text.

So, my dad would argue that the legislature should legislate privacy laws. They haven't, so the elected officials don't deem them desired by their constituents. The Supreme court does not have the constitutional right to create privacy laws out of the constitution that are not there.

 

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, lewelma said:

So, my dad would argue that the legislature should legislate privacy laws. They haven't, so the elected officials don't deem them desired by their constituents. The Supreme court does not have the constitutional right to create privacy laws out of the constitution that are not there.

 

And your dad would be ignoring that BUT FOR the universal right to privacy there is no individual right to Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without the right to privacy, it’s impossible to protect ANYONE from government overreach in any aspect of their  life.

[lewelma]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

And your dad would be ignoring that BUT FOR the universal right to privacy there is no individual right to Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without the right to privacy, it’s impossible to protect ANYONE from government overreach in any aspect of their  life.

Clearly, this is contested, but I like the argument. I'll try it. 🙂

 

[lewelma]

17 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

Well, SCOTUS hasn't *had the chance* to strike down any of the laws protecting the choice to have an abortion in states like NY or CT because *no such law has yet been challenged / appealed / wended its way up to them.*  Nor can that process begin, before Roe is formally overturned.

So how would the pro-abortion laws be challenged? On what grounds?

[Sneezyone]

Just now, lewelma said:

Clearly, this is contested, but I like the argument. I'll try it. 🙂

 

Please do, preferably with your own people. I’m tired of people trying to own/control me/mine.

[lewelma]

And can I say that I really wish Michigan had gotten rid of the 1931 anti-abortion law a long time ago.  Seriously lazy thinking by the left to leave it on the books. 

[lewelma]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Please do, preferably with your own people. I’m tired of people trying to own/control me/mine.

I don't understand. Are you saying you don't want me to post these questions here? How am I to learn? 

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, lewelma said:

I don't understand. Are you saying you don't want me to post these questions here? How am I to learn? 

No. I expect there to be some misunderstanding/ loss of meaning between nations. I’m THOROUGHLY DISGUSTED by Americans who lack historical knowledge/context.

[Murphy101]

5 hours ago, ktgrok said:

That's the thing - you'd think that it wasn't something to worry about, since most men want their wives to have contraception. BUT...most men also are okay with abortion, and yet here we are. So...seems "most people feel" isn't protective like it should be. 

But MOST are not voting!

4 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Are you kidding me right now? MEN LIE. Just like women. Over and over and over again. They ‘support kids, mothers, birth, and then abuse girls, traffic/rape women, pay prostitutes, make porn,  encourage abortion, and then piously attend church, hold up bibles and say they’re pro-life.

And I think you are both correct.  Most reasonable Good men want healthy wives/mothers/daughters/sisters.  But there’s obviously many men (god I pray not most!) who make nice claims about that and also hurt women and or perpetuate hurting women in various ways that are all evil.

3 minutes ago, lewelma said:

So, my dad would argue that the legislature should legislate privacy laws. They haven't, so the elected officials don't deem them desired by their constituents. The Supreme court does not have the constitutional right to create privacy laws out of the constitution that are not there.

And he wouldn’t be all wrong either.

For that matter, I don’t understand how constitutionally women have a “right to birth control/abortion” but none of us have a right to life saving medications.🤷‍♀️ 

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

But MOST are not voting!

And I think you are both correct.  Most reasonable Good men want healthy wives/mothers/daughters/sisters.  But there’s obviously many men (god I pray not most!) who make nice claims about that and also hurt women and or perpetuate hurting women in various ways that are all evil.

And he wouldn’t be all wrong either.

For that matter, I don’t understand how constitutionally women have a “right to birth control/abortion” but none of us have a right to life saving medications.🤷‍♀️ 

Technically, we do have a right to approved meds in the ER. We just have to pay for them, they’re not free, unless they cause an embryo to not implant. In that case they may be unavailable at any cost.

Edited May 11, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Murphy101]

10 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

And your dad would be ignoring that BUT FOR the universal right to privacy there is no individual right to Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without the right to privacy, it’s impossible to protect ANYONE from government overreach in any aspect of their  life.

I do not disagree but if our laws reflect that - an international billion (trillion?) dollar industry is going to seriously stop it or flat out ignore it. None of us would be able to use our cell phones or the internet or debit cards or or or.  There’s literally billion dollar industry in trading our data (which is basically our entire life activity) and almost no real way to protect it from being stolen and traded and used against us, legally or illegally.

I’m not happy about it either. But what’s a gal (or country in 2022) to do about it?

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Murphy101 said:

I do not disagree but if our laws reflect that - an international billion (trillion?) dollar industry is going to seriously stop it or flat out ignore it. None of us would be able to use our cell phones or the internet or debit cards or or or.  There’s literally billion dollar industry in trading our data (which is basically our entire life activity) and almost no real way to protect it from being stolen and traded and used against us, legally or illegally.

I’m not happy about it either. But what’s a gal (or country in 2022) to do about it?

VOTE and get involved in the process. We’re not without means.

[Pam in CT]

IANAL, and any challenge would depend on the specific provisions of the specific legislation being challenged.

But as a general matter, the challenge strategy is to find a specific person with "standing" in the state of the law being challenged (you can't just challenge a law you dislike because I dunna like it, or because it isn't fair, or because I say Unconstitutional; the challenger has to make a case-specific case of harm or injury). And then figure out a specific legal argument strategy that will meet both the SCOTUS criteria for hearing it and go your way once it gets there.

If (forex) LA wanted to challenge CT's new protect-medical-providers law, I imagine it could sue on behalf of the unborn LA "citizen" on the grounds that under LA law the CT provider had committed "murder."  And that after balancing the interests of the provider vs the murdered LA citizen, SCOTUS should overturn the CT law.  There may well be other better / clearer grounds.

[Murphy101]

3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Technically, we do have a right to approved meds in the ER. We just have to pay for them, they’re not free, unless they cause an embryo to not implant. In that case they may be unavailable at any cost.

We only have the right to seek treatment. I cannot make a doctor or facility give me a treatment, approved or otherwise.  Maybe if I have a lot of money and survive I can sue them after the fact. But usually most people can’t even do that. 

[lewelma]

3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

No. I expect there to be some misunderstanding/ loss of meaning between nations. I’m THOROUGHLY DISGUSTED by Americans who lack historical knowledge/context.

Well, the problem is that my dad is the most well read person I have ever known.  At his peak he was reading 104 weekly, monthly, and annual journals each year (you should have seen our mail box!). He reads things like the Economist and International Security (put out by MIT). For my whole life he subscribed to two newspapers and read them cover to cover - the NYT and the Wall Street Journal (or whatever was the conservative one back then) and always told me that the truth was somewhere in the middle.  My whole life he read a big fat history book every. single. MONTH. He is not ignorant. It would be easier to dismiss his opinions if he were.

The point he has made to me for years, is that every side has an intellectual argument. And it is my job to go seek it out and then decide how I would refute it with logic. 

Not all people on the other side of this debate are just ignorant. I wish it were so, but it isn't.  

[Ann.without.an.e]

46 minutes ago, lewelma said:

There is something I would like to discuss. People keep saying that the supreme court is super conservative on abortion, but they seem to me to be conservative on constitutional law.  Let the States do what they want. They are not passing laws to restrict abortion, they are letting States decide either pro or con. They are not striking down pro-abortion laws like in NY.  Now the two views (abortion rights and constitutional law) may be confounded in some judges like Alito and Thomas (or all 5), but seems to me that their ruling is not exactly anti abortion.  The state legislatures passing the laws are clearly anti abortion. I think this is an important distinction, because if it were just anti-abortion, then we wouldn't have to worry about all the other previous rulings they are likely to reconsider (gay marriage, interracial marriage etc). Seems like a conservative constitutional law approach is more dangerous. But it is founded in an intellectual argument.  My dad (the pro choice religious surgeon) feels like the legislature should be the ones passing the laws or amending the constitution (as they are elected) and the supreme court has overstepped for the past 50 years by basically legislating outside of the constitution. He feels like a conservative constitutional law approach is the valid one.

I'm not in this to pick a fight. Happy to hear what people have to say, so please don't 'shout' at me. 

This is exactly what I though was the case. Thank you for saying it better. 

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, lewelma said:

Well, the problem is that my dad is the most well read person I have ever known.  At his peak he was reading 104 weekly, monthly, and annual journals each year (you should have seen our mail box!). He reads things like the Economist and International Security (put out by MIT). For my whole life he subscribed to two newspapers and read them cover to cover - the NYT and the Wall Street Journal (or whatever was the conservative one back then) and always told me that the truth was somewhere in the middle.  My whole life he read a big fat history book every. single. MONTH. He is not ignorant. It would be easier to dismiss his opinions if he were.

The point he has made to me for years, is that every side has an intellectual argument. And it is my job to go seek it out and then decide how I would refute it with logic. 

Not all people on the other side of this debate are just ignorant. I wish it were so, but it isn't.  

Everyone, everyone has blind spots, and the pursuit of intellectual superiority is what led to folks like Buckley getting into bed with the nascent movement that brought us to the brink of curtailing basic human rights and to the detriment of basic human decency and common sense.

Edited May 11, 2022 by Sneezyone

[lewelma]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Everyone, everyone has blind spots, and the pursuit of intellectual superiority is what led to folks like Buckley getting into bed with the nascent movement that brought us to the brink of curtailing basic human rights.

Agreed. So what are mine? And what are yours?

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, lewelma said:

Agreed. So what are mine? And what are yours?

Don’t know you well enough to say. Can’t see myself well enough to be accurate.

[Lecka]

I just read an article recently about other grounds on which the court could have ruled instead of the right to privacy.  
 

Maybe the right to privacy approach is poor.

 

It doesn’t mean there aren’t other arguments.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html

This is an example.

 

To me honestly — this just is not the heart of the current debate, because I don’t believe that all the Supreme Court justices are arguing in good faith from the basis of the Constitution.  I think there are some who show an extreme bias.  It cheapens the arguments they make.  
 

This is also something I have read articles about lately.  
 

Edit:  I think a lot of things would be different if it seemed like there was more — intellectual/moral integrity involved.  I would care a lot more about the arguments being invoked.  
 

From what I am reading lately a lot of people do feel the Supreme Court is very politicized now and is not a body that is committed to impartially examining the Constitution and the various theories/approaches to interpret their role as the highest court in the land.  

Edited May 11, 2022 by Lecka

[Murphy101]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

VOTE and get involved in the process. We’re not without means.

I do vote. Every chance I get.

What are the means you suggest to attain legislated privacy rights?

How can we argue for privacy rights when every time Americans (and people in most countries) use their phone or buy anything with a card, they effectively agree to waive their rights to data that amounts to everything about them?

How do we monitor data industries to verify they are respecting such privacy rights when we can’t even drum up enough government inspectors/auditors for just about anything else as it is? Because you aren’t going to convince me that self monitoring will work. 

[Murphy101]

I will say I disliked Alitos arguments. I thought they were in turns flimsy as heck or downright concerning even though I am pretty darn ardently against abortion.

ETA:  so much so that I actually have pondered if his paper was intended to be serious at all or satire .  

Edited May 11, 2022 by Murphy101

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Murphy101 said:

I do vote. Every chance I get.

What are the means you suggest to attain legislated privacy rights?

How can we argue for privacy rights when every time Americans (and people in most countries) use their phone or buy anything with a card, they effectively agree to waive their rights to data that amounts to everything about them?

How do we monitor data industries to verify they are respecting such privacy rights when we can’t even drum up enough government inspectors/auditors for just about anything else as it is? Because you aren’t going to convince me that self monitoring will work. 

Same way ppl have advocated for generations…raise awareness. Pound the pavement in local/state/federal offices. Join likeminded orgs. Write letters. Form groups. Humiliate opponents on SM (jk), create a viral sensation. I’m not a guru. Obtaining recognition for your rights is REALLY hard. Turns out maintaining them is possibly harder.

[Sneezyone]

57 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

This may get me piled on but…

I do not think ANY babies EVER should be relinquished at birth to one month.  Ideally that SHOULD be nearly zero.

The answer to women in trauma and the answer to women in dire need of help should not have as a first step that they have their babies PERMANENTLY taken from them, either by force or coercing due to dire circumstances.  The first step is to remove as many impediments to mothers having and caring for their babies themselves as possible.  No matter what, some will just not want to keep their babies but the natural occurrence should not be commonplace.  

One month is really not that long to come to grips with parenting, especially for the first time.

And there’s ethical qualms with adopting out of country too.

I’m certainly pro adoption, when bio parents can’t or won’t take care of their children in basic needs. But the FIRST step to “helping” families should never be to tear them apart as fast as possible.

ITA. Be careful tho. This will run you right smack dab into the same groups advocating abortion  and birth control restrictions. Family preservation is a non-desired outcome where healthy, pale infants are concerned.

[Lecka]

Also, I think keep in mind the context of — a lack of legislation, and instead executive orders and Supreme Court cases.  This is a huge context.

It changes the role of the Supreme Court when rulings take the place of legislation, because legislation just doesn’t happen.  (This is my perception and I think it’s a common perception.)

It changes the role of executive orders when they are issued because legislation just doesn’t happen.

So this whole idea that “well the answer is to just do legislation” is a lot more complicated right now than it probably seems.  
 

The appointment of Supreme Court justices is — as far as I know, honestly — baldly political with a Democrat choosing liberals and Republicans choosing conservatives.

 

There is gloating when someone retires and a replacement can be made by a president of the proper party.

 

There is gloating when someone dies and people think “ha ha, we get to appoint someone on our side” when someone dies while that party is a member of a certain party.

 

It is taken for granted that justices will be chosen this way.

 

Lip service is paid to legal philosophies and higher principles.  But how many people really prioritize those ideals?  It is hard to know, it doesn’t appear to be many.  It is not something that is inspiring where we think “we have this impartial group who are going to put the law above everything else.”

 

So of course their specific arguments just are not as important to a lot of people.  
 

 

[Katy]

13 minutes ago, lewelma said:

Well, the problem is that my dad is the most well read person I have ever known.  At his peak he was reading 104 weekly, monthly, and annual journals each year (you should have seen our mail box!). He reads things like the Economist and International Security (put out by MIT). For my whole life he subscribed to two newspapers and read them cover to cover - the NYT and the Wall Street Journal (or whatever was the conservative one back then) and always told me that the truth was somewhere in the middle.  My whole life he read a big fat history book every. single. MONTH. He is not ignorant. It would be easier to dismiss his opinions if he were.

The point he has made to me for years, is that every side has an intellectual argument. And it is my job to go seek it out and then decide how I would refute it with logic. 

Not all people on the other side of this debate are just ignorant. I wish it were so, but it isn't.  

This isn't meant to be political, but more of a political history discussion. FTR, I considered myself independent until this particular decision leaked.  I happen to have voted for pro-choice candidates but abortion wasn't high on the list until now.  I say that because this is going to sound partisan but it isn't.  I interned in the Senate in college and hated the partisan politics.  I got involved in local politics before I had kids and found myself involved in the county delegations for both parties at different times. I truly love both people who are conservative and those who are liberal.  At this point I'm going to be a democrat until my constitutional rights to control my own body are restored, but I'm saying this for context because if you've only paid attention to my writing recently you might think I am far more liberal than I am.  In truth my liberal friends think I'm far too conservative.  And my conservative friends think I'm far too liberal.

I don't remember the dates and I already took my allergy meds for the night so I doubt it will come to me until morning, but somewhere around 25-35 years ago in the US the Republican party moved towards think tanks and away from openly addressing the intellectual arguments.  Trump specifically is the culmination of the strategy:  Be a populist, manipulate voters by telling them whatever they want to hear, actually do something completely different. Ironically they do this while calling Democrats elitists who don't care what ordinary people think.  They don't care either, they simply hide it better. All the big gaffes on this are definitely on the democratic side. At any rate, while the Republicans were manipulating elections by coming up with gerrymandering Democrats were oblivious.  And now we have elections that are constitutionally not democratic unless there is a big uprising over this.

I think the shortest & most approachable book on the topic of how we got here is a decidedly partisan one. It's Don't Think of an Elephant by George Lakoff. It's written by a Democrat to both help people understand what binds the parties together despite people having different interests AND it's trying to compel Democrats to be more organized because Republicans are.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, Lecka said:

Also, I think keep in mind the context of — a lack of legislation, and instead executive orders and Supreme Court cases.  This is a huge context.

It changes the role of the Supreme Court when rulings take the place of legislation, because legislation just doesn’t happen.  (This is my perception and I think it’s a common perception.)

It changes the role of executive orders when they are issued because legislation just doesn’t happen.

So this whole idea that “well the answer is to just do legislation” is a lot more complicated right now than it probably seems.  
 

The appointment of Supreme Court justices is — as far as I know, honestly — baldly political with a Democrat choosing liberals and Republicans choosing conservatives.

 

There is gloating when someone retires and a replacement can be made by a president of the proper party.

 

There is gloating when someone dies and people think “ha ha, we get to appoint someone on our side” when someone dies while that party is a member of a certain party.

 

It is taken for granted that justices will be chosen this way.

 

Lip service is paid to legal philosophies and higher principles.  But how many people really prioritize those ideals?  It is hard to know, it doesn’t appear to be many.  It is not something that is inspiring where we think “we have this impartial group who are going to put the law above everything else.”

 

So of course their specific arguments just are not as important to a lot of people.  
 

 

The arguments may be less noticed/important to some people but they’re still deeply impactful.

[Murphy101]

10 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

ITA. Be careful tho. This will run you right smack dab into the same groups advocating abortion  and birth control restrictions. Family preservation is a non-desired outcome where healthy, pale infants are concerned.

I’m tired and reading with one functioning eye.  But I don’t know what this means. Smack dab into both pro abortion and pro restricting bc?

24 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Same way ppl have advocated for generations…raise awareness. Pound the pavement in local/state/federal offices. Join likeminded orgs. Write letters. Form groups. Humiliate opponents on SM (jk), create a viral sensation. I’m not a guru. Obtaining recognition for your rights is REALLY hard. Turns out maintaining them is possibly harder.

Well. They sucked at advocating for privacy then. Because here we are with practically none. 

[Terabith]

1 hour ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

Maybe this is the problem? And thank you for the clarification. It’s just so hard because it feels like fear mongering when you don’t see this irl. It feels sometimes like both sides are taking the most extreme person or two they can find on the opposite side and using them to represent a whole group of people. I speak as someone sitting in the middle with friends who are on both sides.
Also, do you know that they are more liberal than those on the Supreme Court or does the left just want us all to fear the other side? I feel deeply that this is just a ploy to swing votes and that nothing will actually come of this at all. But I could be wrong. 

My stance is not propaganda.  I spent three weeks in the psych hospital when a former president was elected, because I saw what it foretold.  And I went again when Kavanaugh was appointed, because I knew what was coming.  I'm not fear mongering to try to win people to my side.  I'm terrified and don't know how to save my children from a world where it is very clear what is coming:  no birth control, no gay marriage, no health care if their health might conflict with a fetus's, and eventually no more elections.  I'm not talking long term.  I'm talking in less than ten years, we will have a full authoritarian state with no more real elections.  And there is NOTHING I CAN DO TO PROTECT THEM.  The die was cast with those votes and that appointment.  

[Lecka]

I totally agree they are deeply impactful.
 

I think for someone not living here it would seem like — these are considered arguments where people are in good faith trying to interpret the Constitution.  And if they reach a conclusion that doesn’t fit their side, they will be intellectually honest anyways, and sacrifice their side for the sake of the law.  
 

No, it’s more like — you just try to get your side to get to appoint more justices, or hope you get an Anthony Kennedy.  
 

Then yes — everybody is bound by the arguments in those decisions!!!!!!! And the legal theory in those decisions!!!!!!!  Yes — totally.

 

Even if maybe the argument is not reasoned in the best way, or over-reaches, etc.  
 

It’s not to the point of something like — reading the Russian Consitution to find out what rules Putin has to follow.  Because hey it’s written down!  But I think that it is fair that more people aren’t arguing the merits of the cases as if they are being argued from first principles.  

[Sneezyone]

12 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I’m tired and reading with one functioning eye.  But I don’t know what this means. Smack dab into both pro abortion and pro restricting bc?

Well. They sucked at advocating for privacy then. Because here we are with practically none. 

Pro-family/pro-adoption… It’s not an ideologically consistent bunch. Babies/children are a ‘market’ and adoption is a ‘business’ that needs desirable infants. The same groups promoting abortion and birth control restrictions are HEAVILY pro-adoption (which is not at all pro-family preservation b/c that means giving long-term resources to undesirable families). Maybe I’m not making sense but it’s late and I’m tired. Family preservation requires all the educational, social and medical supports we’ve previously discussed that make parenting more feasible for everyone. It’s not a popular stance among legislators.

Edited May 11, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Ann.without.an.e]

8 minutes ago, Terabith said:

My stance is not propaganda.  I spent three weeks in the psych hospital when a former president was elected, because I saw what it foretold.  And I went again when Kavanaugh was appointed, because I knew what was coming.  I'm not fear mongering to try to win people to my side.  I'm terrified and don't know how to save my children from a world where it is very clear what is coming:  no birth control, no gay marriage, no health care if their health might conflict with a fetus's, and eventually no more elections.  I'm not talking long term.  I'm talking in less than ten years, we will have a full authoritarian state with no more real elections.  And there is NOTHING I CAN DO TO PROTECT THEM.  The die was cast with those votes and that appointment.  

Gently, I heard the same sort of fears from the right when other presidents were elected. Convinced that the left would change society altogether, fearful that there was a leftist agenda to confuse their children about their sexuality, etc. Sitting in the middle here, I hear it from both sides. I'm not dismissing your fears, but it seems like a tennis match where each side hits a ball and the ball just bounces back and forth between some middle ground. Idk, these are just my random thoughts as I sit and see both sides talk about the same sort of fears. 

Anxiety is real and not fun at all. I really hope you can find some help for how to cope with these fears ❤️ 

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

Gently, I heard the same sort of fears from the right when other presidents were elected. Convinced that the left would change society altogether, fearful that there was a leftist agenda to confuse their children about their sexuality, etc. Sitting in the middle here, I hear it from both sides. I'm not dismissing your fears, but it seems like a tennis match where each side hits a ball and the ball just bounces back and forth between some middle ground. Idk, these are just my random thoughts as I sit and see both sides talk about the same sort of fears. 

Anxiety is real and not fun at all. I really hope you can find some help for how to cope with these fears ❤️ 

To be fair, the left never passed or sought to pass legislation that would require you to withhold licensed medical care from your child, or deny emergency healthcare for you, or force you to engage in homosexual sex or remain forever chaste. Some fears are reality-based. Others are not.

Edited May 11, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Terabith]

3 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

Gently, I heard the same sort of fears from the right when other presidents were elected. Convinced that the left would change society altogether, fearful that there was a leftist agenda to confuse their children about their sexuality, etc. Sitting in the middle here, I hear it from both sides. I'm not dismissing your fears, but it seems like a tennis match where each side hits a ball and the ball just bounces back and forth between some middle ground. Idk, these are just my random thoughts as I sit and see both sides talk about the same sort of fears. 

Anxiety is real and not fun at all. I really hope you can find some help for how to cope with these fears ❤️ 

But there was never ANY evidence that the Democrats were going to actually come for anyone's guns.  There just wasn't.  

We had a coup, and we now have a playbook for how to overturn an election.  We have gerrymandered the country.  The Republicans will overtake the Senate and House in the fall, because of the economy.  And they will win the presidency in 2024, almost certainly.  And then that will be it.  There will never be another free election.  

It isn't something I'm making up.  It's something we know because they're telling everyone about it all the freaking time.  When people tell you who they are, we should believe them.  They have published their danged playbooks.  

[Frances]

6 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

Gently, I heard the same sort of fears from the right when other presidents were elected. Convinced that the left would change society altogether, fearful that there was a leftist agenda to confuse their children about their sexuality, etc. Sitting in the middle here, I hear it from both sides. I'm not dismissing your fears, but it seems like a tennis match where each side hits a ball and the ball just bounces back and forth between some middle ground. Idk, these are just my random thoughts as I sit and see both sides talk about the same sort of fears. 

Anxiety is real and not fun at all. I really hope you can find some help for how to cope with these fears ❤️ 

 

10 minutes ago, Ann.without.an.e said:

Gently, I heard the same sort of fears from the right when other presidents were elected. Convinced that the left would change society altogether, fearful that there was a leftist agenda to confuse their children about their sexuality, etc. Sitting in the middle here, I hear it from both sides. I'm not dismissing your fears, but it seems like a tennis match where each side hits a ball and the ball just bounces back and forth between some middle ground. Idk, these are just my random thoughts as I sit and see both sides talk about the same sort of fears. 

Anxiety is real and not fun at all. I really hope you can find some help for how to cope with these fears ❤️ 

Only one side is purposely perpetuating a lie about something that goes to the very core of our democracy, the validity of a presidential election. That lie led directly to the events of January 6th. I honestly don’t know how that doesn’t scare the crap out of any reasonable person and make them pledge never to vote for anyone who doesn’t denounce the lie and the attack on the Capitol.

[1234]

It’s so weird to me to hear others say things about the other side at this moment in time. I was a die hard Republican until 2016. I am from a family that rubbed elbows with these people and have met past Republican presidents and thought they were good people.

Things have changed! I don’t understand those who don’t see it. 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Joker2

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

I’m certainly pro adoption, when bio parents can’t or won’t take care of their children in basic needs. But the FIRST step to “helping” families should never be to tear them apart as fast as possible.

Exactly my sentiment. I support my friends who have adopted 100%, but it is still a trauma and I do not encourage more of it. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Joker2 said:

It’s so weird to me to hear others say things about the other side at this moment in time. I was a die hard Republican until 2016. I am from a family that rubbed elbows with these people and have met past Republican presidents and thought they were good people.

Things have changed! I don’t understand those who don’t see it. 

I was too. I even retained my affiliation beyond the 2016 election in the hopes that I could support the rise of a “normal” Republican. But I gave up in 2019-ish. Changed my affiliation. At present, I cannot imagine reverting to my former party. 

[TexasProud]

Oh my goodness, you guys have gone completly and utterly nuts.  Ok... really. No one will make it illegal.  We just do not want a living thing, a thing with a heart beat, just like a little kitten or dog to be killed. That is it. Oh my goodness....

[Katy]

9 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Oh my goodness, you guys have gone completly and utterly nuts.  Ok... really. No one will make it illegal.  We just do not want a living thing, a thing with a heart beat, just like a little kitten or dog to be killed. That is it. Oh my goodness....

You are ignoring the dozens of politicians who have already stated that is their next goal is to ban birth control. And what Louisiana already did. And the contents of the argument in the leaked draft. You don’t understand the ramifications of what is happening right now. 

[duckabell]

11 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

Oh my goodness, you guys have gone completly and utterly nuts.  Ok... really. No one will make it illegal.  We just do not want a living thing, a thing with a heart beat, just like a little kitten or dog to be killed. That is it. Oh my goodness....

Women who will never get an abortion will still see the ramifications of this legislation by the states. Many of these points have been made, but it's worth understanding how impactful some of this legislation is. 

Access to contraceptives could be at risk.

The way the leaked document was argued was that the right to privacy (which Roe v Wade is based on) isn’t exclusively laid out in the constitution and that historical precedence before the past 50 years should take priority. The rights to contraception, mixed-race marriages, same-sex marriages, and sodomy (what happens in the bedroom) are all based on the reasoning and similar cases that state you have a right to privacy even if it’s not explicitly stated in the constitution. These cases were referenced in the article, even though Alito said it would the ruling would only apply to Roe V Wade (but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t change in the future).

Some Republicans argue that contraceptives that affect implantation are like abortion, and so if abortion is unlawful and/or rights are granted to the fetus at fertilization, contraception could be at risk. If women aren’t allowed access to contraception, that can affect their health, their career, and their family’s security. And access to contraceptives may be threatened even for women who have a medical reason (like PCOS or heavy periods) to use contraception. Again, reduced access to contraceptives is more likely for more conservative states or if national legislation under Republicans is passed.

Pregnant women’s health and safety is at risk.

If abortion is unlawful then providing maternal health is risky for providers. Some states have extremely harsh fines or penalties of jail for providers who assist in an abortion. As providers may not stay up on state laws, they will be conservative in how they treat pregnant women and may delay even lifesaving treatment for women until it’s too late due to their concerns about the fetus and being accused of providing abortion, even if the fetus isn’t viable. Women may also delay seeking prenatal care because if they do naturally miscarry, they don’t want to be accused of abortion.

In addition, in states where a fetus is granted rights at fertilization, women may be limited on the types of medications they can take because it might harm fetuses and you don’t know when fertilization will occur. Some laws also don’t prevent exemptions for cases such as ectopic pregnancies. Finally, women who are pregnant are at a higher risk of being abused or murdered by their domestic partners.

Women could be charged for miscarriages.

Louisiana is putting forth a bill that equates abortion to murder and states that the unborn should be protected at fertilization. This law can criminalize women who obtain an abortion or those who help them. Many abortions these days are caused by using pills, and a doctor can’t tell the difference between a natural miscarriage and an abortion caused by pills. So women who have a natural miscarriage could be accused of murder and threatened with jail time. The criminalization will most likely affect women who are poor and lead to their children being put in foster care.

On a personal note, when I had my miscarriage, I went to the hospital due to excessive bleeding. I received nothing but care and compassion. If the law had changed and I was concerned that I could be jailed because a doctor thought I had caused an abortion, I would not have sought medical care. Other women will delay or avoid getting needed or emergency medical care as well.

Women’s bodily autonomy and right to privacy will go down.

If a fetus is granted the same rights at fertilization as women, then women’s privacy will go down because it will be in the state’s interest to know if they are protecting the fetus. Women who aren’t even pregnant may be restricted in alcohol intake, the medications they take, the risky activities they take, and more due to the potential to harm a fetus. There are already apps getting funding that can track if women visit abortion or maternal health clinics. And in some states like Texas there is a financial incentive for people to report when a woman has a suspected abortion. Some states are also looking for ways to prevent women from traveling to get an abortion, so women's freedom to travel without the state getting involved may be at risk.

Poverty will increase.

Low-income women are 5 times more likely than affluent women to experience an unwanted pregnancy. In addition, financial reasons and/or providing for existing dependents is a common reason to obtain an abortion. Women who are well-off will most likely be able to travel for an abortion or access “illegal” contraception. These laws will hit the young, poor, and those who are already struggling to provide for their families the hardest. And studies have shown that worldwide the best way to reduce poverty is to help with family planning through contraceptives. Studies have also shown that women with unplanned pregnancies who didn’t have the means for contraceptives or abortion were worse off financially five years later.

With these bills, there is no increase in social support such as maternity leave, free prenatal care or healthcare, or preschool. The very thing (access to free contraceptives) that could help reduce the abortion rate may no longer be an option. And depending on how businesses react to this legislation, women’s careers may be at risk if employers don’t want to employ women who are at a higher risk of becoming pregnant more often. And insurance companies may raise their prices or drop maternity coverage due to cost and potential for liability.

Abortions will still happen.

Women have been getting abortions since the beginning of time. These laws will not change that, just change women’s safety and their rights in society. Studies have shown that abortions go down under Democratic presidents because they support easier access to contraceptives and sex education.

[Ann.without.an.e]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

You are ignoring the dozens of politicians who have already stated that is their next goal is to ban birth control. And what Louisiana already did. And the contents of the argument in the leaked draft. You don’t understand the ramifications of what is happening right now. 

I would love Links (with their own statements) that show who these dozens of politicians are, please? Masters is the reference people keep using and he’s currently suing the paper who originally published this because he claims it is false info. I haven’t done enough research yet to know my thoughts on who he is or whether there is validity to his claims.

Edited May 11, 2022 by Ann.without.an.e

[Pam in CT]

re inelegant Roe reasoning

23 minutes ago, Lecka said:

I just read an article recently about other grounds on which the court could have ruled instead of the right to privacy.  

Maybe the right to privacy approach is poor.

It doesn’t mean there aren’t other arguments.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html

This is an example.

To me honestly — this just is not the heart of the current debate, because I don’t believe that all the Supreme Court justices are arguing in good faith from the basis of the Constitution.  I think there are some who show an extreme bias.  It cheapens the arguments they make.  

This is also something I have read articles about lately.  

Edit:  I think a lot of things would be different if it seemed like there was more — intellectual/moral integrity involved.  I would care a lot more about the arguments being invoked.  
 

From what I am reading lately a lot of people do feel the Supreme Court is very politicized now and is not a body that is committed to impartially examining the Constitution and the various theories/approaches to interpret their role as the highest court in the land.  

Since 1973 legal analysts on both sides of the content of the Roe decision have picked at its legal reasoning.

And, sure, Monday morning quarterback, perhaps it would have been better had the then-Justices "found" a route to abortion choice by driving through the Fourth Amendment (affording protection against unreasonable seizure, with an argument that I own my body as much as I own my personal property; thus government does not have the authority to compel me to make breeding space without my consent); or through the Third Amendment (prohibiting government from "quartering" people in any house without consent of the Owner in times of peace; similarly government has no authority to compel housing of an unborn fetus). Or by leaning into the Due Process clause or something else.

 

Perhaps.  Counterhistorical narratives are fun. I personally doubt it would have made a lick of difference: politicians casting about for an Outrage du Jour to rally the masses will land on whatever looks like it'll do the job; solid Constitutional reasoning is not part of the discussion; see today's howling about private companies establishing T's and C's for their private platforms, which the First Amendment absolutely-definitely does not limit.

Yet here we are, where we are.

 

The Constitution does not explicitly specify a "right" to privacy, in medical decision-making or, for that matter, whether private companies or federal or state government can read our emails or posts on internet forums.

Neither does the Constitution explicitly specify a "right" to association (= exclusion) in clubs or groups or universities; or a "right" to marriage; or a "right" to drive a car; or a "right" to receive packages through public or private mail services without scanning or seizure; or any number of ordinary actions we all take for granted.

The Constitution is not, and never was, a complete inventory of every human action. From its inception, it has always been a *reference book* of guiding principles and precedents of similar-not-identical reasoning; not a *recipe book* of precise measurements and how-to steps. 

 

So, we are where we are. Once "found" in Roe (whether or not the then-Justices could have gotten there via a different route), the implicit "right to privacy" became the precedent foundation for subsequent decisions, including a number that affected contraception.

And once that "right to privacy" is overturned, those contraception decisions no longer rest on any Constitutional basis.  They are *absolutely* subject to being overturned as well.

That's not fear-mongering. That is how the appeals system works.

[Tanaqui]

Texas, I eat things that used to have a heartbeat every single day. Things which not only had a heartbeat, but had higher brain function. I'm not a vegan. I don't think very many people on this board are vegans. Why would you ever say such a silly thing? "Heartbeat". What nonsense.

[Tanaqui]

As for contraception: https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/gop-contraception-restrictions-arent-table-rcna27922

I assume everybody here can google to confirm anything mentioned in this link, if they're still in doubt.

[gstharr]

On 5/3/2022 at 7:52 PM, Grace Hopper said:

I understand. But if some laws pass or come about as predicted (going after contraception), online Rx purchases may be traceable. I do understand it’s legal now but already we see some states proposing to prosecute their citizens for actions those citizens take out of state. 

Prescriptions are already being tracked.  I know because a few years ago, I lost my health coverage. Started going to a community clinic, treatment and prescriptions on-site.  All cash, no insurance paperwork.  When I recovered my health coverage, I went to  the HMO.  I decided not to tell new doctor about the medicaitons I was taking because I was curious as to good the community clinic had handle my case.  First thing the new doctor said was I see you are on XXX and YYY.   I was very suprised as these were not very dangerous narcotics, but rather common medications.

[Murphy101]

9 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Pro-family/pro-adoption… It’s not an ideologically consistent bunch. Babies/children are a ‘market’ and adoption is a ‘business’ that needs desirable infants. The same groups promoting abortion and birth control restrictions are HEAVILY pro-adoption (which is not at all pro-family preservation b/c that means giving long-term resources to undesirable families). Maybe I’m not making sense but it’s late and I’m tired. Family preservation requires all the educational, social and medical supports we’ve previously discussed that make parenting more feasible for everyone. It’s not a popular stance among legislators.

Oh. Yeah. I know all that. I mean sure adoption is better than not getting to live at all but that’s a low bar and God calls us to to higher standard. Thus the commands to the works of mercy and beatitudes. 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Murphy101

[KSera]

On 5/9/2022 at 7:46 AM, Katy said:

It isn't unsafe at all.  There is no reason to tie birth control to things that should happen at routine physicals and pap smears.  And they don't let you order anything but the mini pill if you're over 40, which doesn't increase risk for blood clots, heart disease, or strokes, and actually decreases risks for many things.

One of my adult kids just started the pill, and her doctor said we couldn’t do that particular appointment via telehealth because she needed to get height, weight and current blood pressure before she could prescribe.