Abortion

Talk about anything you like but keep it civil. This is a public forum, the views and opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the LGC.

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

Message
Author
User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13317
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#76 Post by highdesert » Tue May 28, 2019 11:06 am

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld part of an unusual Indiana abortion law that requires clinics to bury or cremate the remains of a fetus. The justices in a short opinion said the law did not violate a woman's right to choose abortion.

But in doing so, the court sidestepped a much larger issue — deciding not to consider Indiana’s effort to revive a law that could have made it illegal for women to end a pregnancy because of the race or gender of the fetus or if they received a diagnosis of Down syndrome.

The court’s action Tuesday signals that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and his fellow conservatives are not ready to directly confront abortion rights, at least during a presidential election year. Had the high court agreed to hear the Indiana case, it would have been argued in the fall and decided by June 2020.

The justices’ decision to uphold lower court rulings that blocked the major part of Indiana’s law from taking effect suggests they’re unlikely to consider the even more sweeping abortion bans recently adopted by Alabama and others conservative states.

Since early January, the justices had debated the appeal in Box vs. Planned Parenthood during their weekly conferences.

The justices voted 7-2 to uphold the fetal remains part of Indiana’s law, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting.

Lower courts had struck down Indiana’s law as unconstitutional under Roe vs. Wade. Under that decision, a woman and her doctor, not the state, has the right to choose whether to end an early or mid-term pregnancy.

The law sought to prohibit abortions entirely in some situations. It was signed into law in 2016 by Mike Pence, then the governor of Indiana, and now vice president.

The law’s “non-discrimination” provision said “Indiana does not allow a fetus to be aborted solely because of the fetus’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability.”

The law had a narrow exemption for a lethal condition which “will with reasonable certainty result in the death of the child not more than three months after the child's birth.”

The justices are still likely to consider some aspects of abortion law in the next year.

In February, the chief justice joined with the court’s four liberals to keep on hold a Louisiana law that threatened to shut down all but one or two abortion clinics in the state. The 5th Circuit Court based in New Orleans ruled that the law could take effect, but the Supreme Court is likely to review the case, June Medical Services vs. Gee, during its next term beginning in October. If so, a decision would be handed down by summer.

Still, that case does not directly involve the decision to have an abortion, but instead whether the state may require doctors at an abortion clinic to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

The law’s provision on fetal remains requires clinics to bury or cremate fetuses.

A federal judge in Indiana and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago blocked both parts of the law from taking effect. In a 2-1 decision, the appeals court said the “non-discrimination” provisions “clearly violate well-established Supreme Court precedent and are therefore unconstitutional.”

The appeals court struck down the fetal remains provision because, “simply put, the law does not recognize that an aborted fetus is a person.”

Last year, the 7th Circuit split 4-4 on whether to reconsider that ruling. The dissenters included Judges Amy Coney Barrett from Indiana and Diane Sykes from Wisconsin, both of whom were considered by President Trump for a Supreme Court nomination.

In early October, the same week Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh was sworn in, the state’s lawyers urged the high court to “uphold Indiana’s authority put an end to eugenic abortions.”
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 4020
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#77 Post by featureless » Tue May 28, 2019 11:22 am

I guess the question is, who pays for the burial or cremation? Is the fee discriminatory to poor women?

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13317
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#78 Post by highdesert » Tue May 28, 2019 12:14 pm

featureless wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 11:22 am
I guess the question is, who pays for the burial or cremation? Is the fee discriminatory to poor women?
We now reverse that determination. This Court has already acknowledged that a State has a “legitimate interest in proper disposal of fetal remains.” Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 U. S. 416, 452, n. 45 (1983). The Seventh Circuit clearly erred in failing to recognize that interest as a permissible basis for Indiana’s disposition law. See Armour v. Indianapolis, 566 U. S. 673, 685 (2012) (on rational basis review, “the burden is on the one attacking the legislative arrangement to negative every conceivable basis which might support it”). The only remaining question, then, is whether Indiana’s law is rationally related to the State’s interest in proper disposal of fetal remains. We conclude that it is, even if it is not perfectly tailored to that end. See ibid. (the State need not have drawn “the perfect line,” as long as “the line actually drawn [is] a rational” one). We therefore uphold
Indiana’s law under rational basis review. We reiterate that, in challenging this provision, respondents [Planned Parenthood] have never argued that Indiana’s law imposes an undue burden on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion. This case, as litigated, therefore does not implicate our cases applying the undue burden test to abortion regulations. Other courts have analyzed challenges to similar disposition laws under the undue burden standard. See Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. v. Commissioner of Indiana State Dept. of Health, 2018 WL 3655854, *2−*3 (CA7, June 25, 2018) (Wood, C. J., concurring in denial of rehearing en banc). Our opinion expresses no view on the merits of those challenges.
Interesting that it's "Per Curiam" [by the court] and not signed.
Why leave an opinion unsigned, especially if there are dissents or Justices saying they would have denied the petition?
https://www.scotusblog.com

As to who pays, probably the subject of another lawsuit in federal court.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
kronkmusic
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:34 pm
Location: South Florida
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#79 Post by kronkmusic » Tue May 28, 2019 12:28 pm

TrueTexan wrote:
kronkmusic wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 10:12 am
TT, read that article yesterday. If you've been paying close enough attention to Reddit and some other corners of the internet, there have been murmerings about it for years. First off, the irony is thick, nothing says pro-life like murdering your fellow Americans. Second, they're a small and shrinking subset of our society who are just organized enough to have an oversized influence on our government, and therefore an inflated ego and sense of power. Third, without having varified numbers, I would venture to guess that an extremely small number of people in America would actually want a civil war and all the horrors that come with it, and an even smaller percentage of those would have the physical ability or even the will to fight in one themselves. What do they think they're gonna do? March into Washington DC with their glorified hunting rifles and take on the capitol police and the national guard? It wouldn't be a war, it would just be a few hundred jackasses getting arrested on firearms charges. If their plan is simply succession then I say go for it, the most conservative areas of the country are almost third world as it is, they'd really become third world when they're cut off from the economic centers of the coastal cities. Have fun importing things you need like food and medicine. And how'd that first civil war work out for ya? That one had much more support than this one will ever have, it was about their entire economic system at the time. Hell, the vast majority of people in these abortion ban states don't even want the restrictive laws their state legislations are passing, they're not gonna take up arms to uphold them.

Yes, religious extremists have successfully waged civil wars and staged coups in other countries, but mostly in Middle Eastern and Asian countries much more susceptible to it than we are in America. Though I guess in all fairness, the closest thing we've seen to a coup in this country is what's happening right now, so there's that...
I tend to stay off Reddit and those areas of the Internet. I agree that is a small segment of the population wanting to outlaw abortion. Poll after poll has shown the majority of the American people support the women's right to choose. But just like the results of the last presidential election the minority has gained the power over the majority. The merger of the Christian Evangelical Rightwing, the ultra conservative radical right wing and the big money conservative corporations, each with their own agenda, has formed the current Reptilian party. It is bent on subjugating the will of the majority of Americans to their way of thinking. It is being done by control of the Senate and effectively neutering the House. Packing the courts to the point we no longer have a Federal Judiciary, but a Reptilian rightwing judiciary. Controlling the Executive and Independent agencies of the government by placing their people uncharge to decimate agencies and departments not to their liking. So there may not be a Coup but the results are the same
You're very correct, which is why I'll say again if Democrats can keep the house and take the Presidency and by chance the Senate in 2020, or even if the Senate has to wait until 2022, they have to hammer on voting rights more than anything else. Automatic voter registration, ending gerrymandering, restoring voting rights to felons, expanding early voting and mail-in voting, restoring and strengthening the Voting Rights Act, etc. If people were properly represented in government, we wouldn't be dealing with any of this nonsense. The Republican Party would have to take a sharp turn towards the center to have any hope of winning another election. So honestly, to me, everything else can wait.

Republicans will predictably call all of this a "power grab" and they'd be correct, just not in the way they think. It would be a power grab for the people, away from corporate overlords, religious extremists and fringe special interests.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13317
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#80 Post by highdesert » Wed May 29, 2019 10:52 am

A Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis may be forced to stop performing abortions as soon as Saturday, leaving Missouri as the only state without a place for women to legally have the procedure. The facility’s annual license to provide abortions is set to expire this month, and Missouri's health department is threatening to refuse to renew it unless doctors consent to “inappropriate interrogation, bordering on harassment,” the nonprofit said in a statement Tuesday.

“This is not a drill,” said Dr. Leana Wen, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “This is not a warning. This is a real public health crisis. This week, Missouri would be the first state in the country to go dark.” Faced with that prospect, abortion providers in neighboring Illinois were bracing for an influx of patients. “If Missouri blocks the last remaining abortion provider … in the state, it’s going to leave more than 1.1 million women of reproductive age to face a world where they’re blocked from accessing abortion services,” said Alison Dreith, the deputy director of the Hope Clinic for Women in Granite City, Ill., 10 miles from downtown St. Louis.

“How do we get more staff in the clinic, so we can continue the same service of care that we’ve always given our patients? Can we get some volunteers? Do we open an extra day? Do we have earlier start times? Do we schedule differently?” The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services did not immediately respond to phone calls or emails. Dr. Randall Williams, the department director, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that state officials would decide by Friday on whether to renew the clinic’s license.

Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit Tuesday in the Circuit Court of St. Louis, seeking to prevent the state from blocking the facility from providing abortions. If the license is not renewed by Friday, Missouri would become the only state in the nation with no health center providing women with access to legal, safe abortion. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe vs. Wade that the Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a woman’s right to abortion.

“This is the world that the Trump administration and Republican public officials across the country have been pushing for — a world where abortion care is illegal and inaccessible in this country,” Dr. Wen said of the move to force the St. Louis clinic to close. “We want our patients to know that we will never abandon the women of Missouri,” she added. “We will help you to get the care that you need — no matter what.”

Missouri is one of six states — along with Kentucky, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota and West Virginia — with just one abortion clinic. A raft of states, including Missouri, have passed contentious laws this year blocking virtually all abortions. Last week, Missouri Gov. Mike Parson signed a bill outlawing abortions on or beyond the eighth week of pregnancy — with no exceptions for rape or incest. “We are sending a strong signal to the nation that, in Missouri, we stand for life, protect women's health, and advocate for the unborn," the Republican governor said in a statement after signing the law. "All life has value and is worth protecting."

According to Planned Parenthood’s legal filings, Missouri health department officials dropped in unannounced to the St. Louis clinic in early April, stating that they were investigating a complaint from a patient and requesting six patient medical records and other documentation.

A little over a week later, the state formally requested that seven doctors and a nurse submit to questioning before the clinic’s license is renewed. The state refused to provide any information about the subject matter of the complaint, but it later indicated the questioning could lead to criminal referrals or board review for those physicians. None of the physicians are employed by Planned Parenthood. The nurse and two of the most senior physicians agreed to be interviewed by state officials, but the other doctors — some of whom have completed their rotation at the clinic — refused to submit themselves to questioning.

The clinic in Granite City sits just across the Mississippi River from St. Louis — in a state that, politically, might as well be a million miles away from Missouri. On Tuesday, the Illinois House passed the Reproductive Health Act, a sweeping bill that affirms women’s reproductive health rights and eliminates laws that restrict abortions later in pregnancy and impose criminal penalties on physicians who perform them. The bill, which would also require insurance companies to provide coverage for abortions, now moves to the Senate.

“It’s a lot of highs and lows today, and we’re just scrambling to put all those pieces together to best support our patients,” Dreith said. The clinic’s senior staff held a crisis management meeting Tuesday to discuss how its 30 employees would cope with demand from Missouri, she said. Even if the state blocks the St. Louis clinic from performing abortions, it will not close and will continue to provide services such as birth control and health screenings. “Planned Parenthood has served Missouri for more than 87 years and we will fight to provide care for another century,” Dr. Colleen McNicholas, an OB-GYN of Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, said in a statement.

“We are currently open for all services, and our top priority is to ensure access to abortion continues so that every patient can access high-quality care in Missouri.”
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-mi ... story.html
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 4020
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#81 Post by featureless » Wed May 29, 2019 11:32 am

Fuck. This is bad. Past time for Missourians to be in the streets and getting there for the rest of us.

Back to my original line of questioning, how do we stop this (beyond the ballot box)? I'm not confident that SCOTUS will overturn these laws in their entirety. There is a lot of "room" between outright bans disallowed by Roe and restrictions leading to defacto bans, as several states have demonstrated throughout history in other areas of constitutional guarantees.

User avatar
Bullitt68
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 442
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:39 pm
Location: So. AZ

Re: Abortion

#82 Post by Bullitt68 » Wed May 29, 2019 10:59 pm

See white men passing anti-abortion laws an in that as a criminal crack head;or person of color rapes your wife or daughter they will have to bring the baby to term . You know that shit is not going to happen.
We sit in the mud... and reach for the stars.
Ivan Turgenev

Prevent Suicides Call https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/t ... meone-now/

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13317
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#83 Post by highdesert » Thu May 30, 2019 8:59 am

The Louisiana House approved a strict new abortion law barring the procedure once a heartbeat is detectable, a point before many women may realize they are pregnant.

By a vote of 79-23, the lawmakers banned abortions as early as six weeks of pregnancy. Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards said in a statement that he "ran for governor as a pro-life candidate," and intended to sign the abortion ban.

"As I prepare to sign this bill, I call on the overwhelming bipartisan majority of legislators who voted for it to join me in continuing to build a better Louisiana that cares for the least among us and provides more opportunity for everyone," he said.

More than a dozen Democratic lawmakers approved the bill, along with all of the Republicans. The Louisiana legislation does not include an exception for a pregnancy due to rape or incest. It does allow abortions to prevent a woman's death or if the pregnancy presents "a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." It also allows an abortion if the pregnancy is "medically futile."

Six other states — Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, Missouri and Alabama — have recently passed laws banning abortion. The Missouri law bars abortion after eight weeks of pregnancy. Alabama's law is considered the toughest in the nation, carrying a penalty of up to 99 years for doctors who would defy the ban.
https://www.npr.org/2019/05/29/72814183 ... -will-sign

Louisiana is different historically and religiously than the other states. Still waiting for the article showing the conspiracy between Republicans and churches to get this to SCOTUS.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
TrueTexan
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 15583
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:28 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: The "Crazy" part of Denton Texas
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#84 Post by TrueTexan » Thu May 30, 2019 10:46 am

The right wing is not only going after abortion, it is also going after birth control.
They always deny it when directly confronted, but make no mistake: Conservatives are coming for your birth control. That much was confirmed yet again on Tuesday when Justice Clarence Thomas issued an unhinged opinion on what was supposed to be an abortion case in which, not to put too fine a point on it, he suggested that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, advocated for birth control because she was hoping to kill black people.

At stake was a law that, on its surface, had nothing to do with contraception. It was classic troll-the-liberals legislation from Indiana, signed by then-Gov. Mike Pence, which barred abortion on the basis of race, sex or disability of the fetus. Anti-choicers have long pushed for these laws on the grounds that black women have higher abortion rates than white women, implying, by a leap of logic that’s extreme even for religious fanatics, that black women are the “real” racists and that they get abortions because they hate black children.

Thomas, in his opinion, concurred with this defamation of black women, pointing out that black women have more abortions than white women on average and arguing that “insofar as abortion is viewed as a method of ‘family planning,’ black people do indeed ‘tak[e] the brunt of the ‘planning.’'”

This “black women are the real racists” argument has been popular in anti-choice circles for a long time — there are frequent accusations that black women are literally committing “genocide” against black people — mostly because it lets a bunch of white Republicans feel that they’re somehow the good guys for trying to take away women’s health care services. It’s also a way to stigmatize Planned Parenthood by insinuating the founder was a white supremacist. But, of course, this argument is itself both deeply racist and deeply misogynist, in that the implication is that black women hate their children and want to kill them.

In reality, the reason black women get more abortions than white women is simple: They have more unwanted pregnancies. That’s because black women, thanks to structural racism, have significantly poorer access to contraception. Due in no small part to the Affordable Care Act and its provision requiring insurance companies to cover contraception, abortion rates have been falling for all groups of women in recent years — and especially for black women.

But conservatives are swiftly, if still stealthily, moving to reverse those trends, and are fighting to make contraception harder to get, so that the unintended pregnancy rate will start soaring again. Thomas did his part in that opinion by aggressively promoting the long-standing anti-choice conspiracy theory that Sanger advocated for birth control because she supposedly had it out for black people.

We know that Thomas’ rant was an attack on birth control because, as he admits, Sanger was not actually supportive of abortion, which she called an “abnormal, often dangerous, surgical operation” that she strongly condemned as “dangerous and vicious.”

Sanger’s hatred of abortion was wrong-headed, but in fairness, it was likely rooted in her experience as a nurse working in the tenements in the Lower East Side of Manhattan in the early 20th century. There she bore witness to the gory injuries caused by “slippery-elm sticks, or knitting needles, or shoe hooks into the uterus” to which women resorted in order to abort.

Thomas tries to massage his opinion into making some approximate sense by saying that the arguments against contraception “apply with even greater force to abortion.” This is a legalistic version of the “contraceptive mentality” argument popular in anti-choice circles, which holds that contraception causes abortions by convincing people that non-procreative sex is acceptable. If people only had sex for procreation and within the bounds of heterosexual marriage, the argument goes, then there would be no need for abortion.

(Of course, the idea that there was a time when people limited their sexual activity to procreative purposes is laughable. Also, the use of abortion predates the birth control movement in North America by hundreds, if not thousands, of years.)

There is no doubt, as Thomas makes abundantly clear in this opinion, that Sanger was an advocate of the noxious early-20th-century pseudoscience of eugenics, which suggested that the human race could be “bettered” by manipulating breeding to improve human “stock.” But it’s historically inaccurate to imply, as Thomas and the anti-choice activists he’s cribbing from do, that Sanger started the birth control movement because of her belief in eugenics. The historical record is clear on this: Sanger began advocating for birth control to empower women and then latched onto the eugenics movement as a way to increase interest in the issue.

Sanger advocated for some highly distasteful eugenics ideas at times. But it’s flat-out false to imply, as Thomas does, that she supported forced sterilization or that she was trying to get rid of black people. In her writings, she insisted that birth control must be “autonomous, self-directive, and not imposed from without” and that no one should “be endowed with the authority to order anyone to be sterilized.”

More importantly, Thomas is being disingenuous in his suggestion that Sanger was targeting black people for eugenics purposes when she teamed up with activists like W.E.B. Du Bois to open clinics geared towards helping black women obtain contraception. As Imani Gandy wrote at Rewire in 2015, this project was literally the opposite of a racist attack on black people. It was an explicit effort to make services available to black people that only whites previously had access to. Sanger believed that birth control helped people exert more control over their lives and help themselves economically, and this project was explicitly meant to help people in the black community empower themselves.

“Due to segregation policies in the South, the birth control clinics that opened in the 1930s were for white women only. Sanger wanted to change that,” Gandy explained.

As Gandy notes, Sanger explicitly rejected the idea of racial eugenics, saying she had encountered a man who tried to give her money if she would “cut down” on the number of black people.

“That is, of course, not our idea. I turned him down,” Sanger said. “But that is an example of how vicious some people can be about this thing.” She added that her purpose was to reduce “sufferings for all groups.”

Despite his protestations to the contrary, Thomas’s opinion is clearly meant to bolster the growing efforts of the religious right to expand the war on reproductive rights past attacks on abortion, onward to reducing access to contraception.

Demonizing Margaret Sanger is clearly meant to stigmatize her legacy. But her legacy is not abortion — which, again, she opposed — but birth control. It was Sanger who coined the term “birth control.” It was Sanger who went to jail repeatedly for teaching women how to prevent pregnancy. And it was Sanger who envisioned the concept of the birth control pill, eventually securing the funding that allowed it to be developed. So when anti-choicers seek to turn her into a villain, their goal is to taint contraception by association and create a moral case for restricting access.

There’s no small amount of hypocrisy in play here. Clarence Thomas sits on a court that was literally created by slave-holders, including George Washington, who signed the act that created the Supreme Court. And Thomas adheres to an “originalist” judicial philosophy which claims that the beliefs of the nation’s founders — who were, whatever their better qualities, a bunch of racists who literally wrote legal slavery into the founding documents — should matter more in jurisprudence than current, more progressive social mores. Thomas presumably doesn’t believe that the U.S. Constitution or the Supreme Court is permanently tainted by these racist associations. But when it comes to restricting women’s rights, he is happy to advance a much shakier case of guilt by association.

The good news is that there’s not much that’s legally binding in this rant from Thomas. His opinion was tied to a court decision that actually throws out Indiana’s law banning abortions done on the basis of race, sex or disability. (To be clear, there is no evidence that the first two kinds of abortions even happen. Those seem to be figments of anti-choice activists’ collective racist imagination.) For now, the claim that reproductive rights must be restricted on the basis of some imaginary eugenics threat against people of color has no legal importance.

The bad news, however, is that by elevating right-wing conspiracy theories about Margaret Sanger, Thomas has given the blessing of a Supreme Court justice to the escalating war on birth control. The pretense that the right’s campaign against reproductive rights is about “life” is fast fading away. Instead, Thomas bluntly suggests that women can’t be trusted to make their own decisions about when to give birth because they will use that power for unsavory or even racist purposes. That kind of argument isn’t just about abortion. It’s about the idea that society must control or restrict any method women employ to control childbirth.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/a-new- ... h-control/

Got to keep them women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen as God intended. :sarcasm:
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

User avatar
Dreamsinger
Been around awhile
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:34 pm
Location: Puget Sound
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#85 Post by Dreamsinger » Thu May 30, 2019 10:55 am

It angers me that the same people who want the government off our backs have no problem inserting it into the sovereign sanctity of our bodies. What makes this a precedent that affects men is that if they can legislate that far into a women they can find a reason to legislate into anyone's body. What's next?
"Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees" - Emiliano Zapata

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 18868
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#86 Post by CDFingers » Thu May 30, 2019 11:42 am

Dreamsinger wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 10:55 am
What's next?
We dis-elect them.

Democracy is a messy business.

CDFingers
ImageImage
Life may be sweeter for this, I don't know.
See how it feels in the end.

User avatar
Dreamsinger
Been around awhile
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:34 pm
Location: Puget Sound
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#87 Post by Dreamsinger » Thu May 30, 2019 7:24 pm

The problem is that 4 out of 5 of us "we's" don't vote and those that do tend be easily mobilized from the pulpit.
"Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees" - Emiliano Zapata

User avatar
Hiker
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:22 pm
Location: Lexington KY
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#88 Post by Hiker » Fri May 31, 2019 1:18 am

61510650_10205495510785003_2137663226752532480_n.jpg
All religions united with government are more or less inimical to liberty. All, separated from government, are compatible with liberty.-Henry Clay
Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms.—Aristotle

User avatar
kronkmusic
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:34 pm
Location: South Florida
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#89 Post by kronkmusic » Fri May 31, 2019 1:30 am

Hiker wrote:
61510650_10205495510785003_2137663226752532480_n.jpg
Yeah. Meanwhile, try to talk to them about actual realistic solutions that reduce abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies, real common sense solutions like sex education and access to contraceptives, and all you get back is crickets. They don't give a flying **** about women or babies, it's 100% about control and dominance, and I'm beyond sick of it.

User avatar
Wino
Loquacious
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:04 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#90 Post by Wino » Fri May 31, 2019 9:04 am

The right doesn't give a damn about women or abortions, and they damn sure don't give a flying fuck for born babies and their future no matter how bleak it may be. Until the day I take my last breath I will never understand how any woman, person of color, LGBT, disabled, people on Medicare/SS/Medicare, welfare, old, poor to middle class, can vote for a republican right wing hater, much less Cheetolini - it just does not compute - totally senseless.
"Being Republican is more than a difference of opinion - it's a character flaw."
"The greatest threat facing the United States is its own president." David Rothkopf, WaPo

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13317
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#91 Post by highdesert » Fri May 31, 2019 2:33 pm

Abortion services can continue for now in Missouri after a judge ruled against the state, which had refused to renew Planned Parenthood's license to continue providing the procedure. The matter will be heard in court again on June 4. If the clinic had to stop providing abortion services, Missouri would have been the first state in the nation to block the procedure in more than 45 years. A lawsuit against the state was filed earlier this week by Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, which has provided abortions for more than two decades and is the last remaining clinic to do so in Missouri. Its license to continue offering abortions was set to expire Friday, and the organization argued that withholding the license amounted to another tactic in a years-long effort to "restrict abortion access and deny Missourians their right to choose abortion."

The lawsuit was brought against Missouri Gov. Michael Parson and the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, which administers the license the clinic needed. It sought a temporary restraining order against the state, in order to avoid the disruption of services. "This is not a drill. This is not a warning. This is a real public health crisis," Dr. Leana Wen, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said Tuesday in a statement. "Missouri would be the first state in the country to go dark -- without a health center that provides safe, legal abortion care," denying access to "more than a million women of reproductive age" living in the state, she said. Circuit Court Judge Michael Stelzer heard arguments from both sides on Thursday, as demonstrators gathered to protest what they see as an ongoing assault on reproductive rights. "If you cut off my reproductive rights, can I cut off yours?" said one sign. Others read, "Governor Parson: shame on you" and "Protect safe, legal abortion."

The outcry came a week after the governor signed into law House Bill 126, which bans abortions at eight weeks of pregnancy, even in cases of rape and incest. "DHSS now is attempting to shut down [the abortion provider], by unlawfully conditioning a decision on its routine license renewal application on completion of a supposed 'investigation' of a patient complaint," the lawsuit said, the details of which had not been disclosed to Planned Parenthood. The governor said on Wednesday that the health department discovered during an annual inspection of the facility in March "numerous violations of state laws and regulations." He would not address questions about the nature of the violations, saying only, "They are well aware of the deficiencies" and that details could not be provided "because it is still an ongoing investigation." The fact that the St. Louis clinic is the last abortion provider in the state should be irrelevant, Parson said, because "This is about a standard of care for women in the state of Missouri.

"They should have every right under the law to have their license renewed," he said. "But they should not receive any exemptions simply because they're one clinic." In a statement released Wednesday, Planned Parenthood's president, Wen, said Parson's comments were "not based on medicine, facts, or reality" At a press conference after the hearing, M'Evie Mead, director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Missouri, said the state is making decisions in an "arbitrary and capricious way."
Mead said Planned Parenthood has "bent over backwards" to try to comply with rules, while the state continues to change them.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/31/health/m ... index.html
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 18868
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#92 Post by CDFingers » Fri May 31, 2019 10:10 pm

Power is the Second Enemy of a Person of Knowledge (Fear, Power, Clarity, Old Age).

CDFingers
ImageImage
Life may be sweeter for this, I don't know.
See how it feels in the end.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13317
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#93 Post by highdesert » Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:50 pm

In response to new anti-abortion laws in some states, other states are responding with their own laws.
The Illinois Senate late Friday sent to the governor legislation that establishes a woman’s “fundamental right” to an abortion. The 34-20 vote approving the Reproductive Health Act comes in response to new laws passed in other states narrowing abortion rights.

At the same time, Nevada’s Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak signed into law Friday a bill that decriminalizes outdated abortion laws in the state. He said the new law reaffirms the state's commitment to protecting reproductive freedom.

Senate approval sends the measure to Democrat Governor J.B. Pritzker who has campaigned to make Illinois the most progressive state in the country for reproductive rights, WGN-TV reported. The Illinois House passed it previously. In addition to establishing abortion as a woman’s fundamental right, the bill states that “a fertilized egg, embryo or fetus does not have independent rights,” according to the station. It also repeals the Illinois abortion law of 1975, eliminating spousal consent, waiting periods, criminal penalties for abortion providers and restrictions on abortion facilities, the station reported.

Pritzker was seen on the Senate floor after the vote hugging and congratulating supporters of the bill. He has vowed to sign it into law. State Sen. Paul Schimpf, R-Waterloo, bill, voted no, calling the bill the most radical pro-abortion rights bill in the nation, according to the Bellville News-Democrat. “It gets rid of a lot of the meaningful limits … my reading of it, it allows for gender selection of abortions," Schimpf said, according to the paper.

The bill’s sponsor State Sen. Melinda Bush, D-Grayslake, said abortions after a baby is viable would only take place if a doctor judges the abortion is necessary to protect the health of the mother, the paper reported. “We’re trying to protect a woman’s fundamental rights,” she was quoted as saying. “I believe there is a war against women’s rights going on right now, this needs to be passed now to be sure we in Illinois continue to protect those rights.”

New laws have recently been enacted in five states—Louisiana, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Ohio—that prohibit a pregnant woman from getting an abortion after a heartbeat has been detected.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/illinois-abo ... ght-senate
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
Bisbee
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 6087
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:38 pm
Location: On The Border with no need of The Wall.
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#94 Post by Bisbee » Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:22 am

The unintended consequences of the Republicans’ War on Women which is arising in Illinois and Nevada are wonderful and encouraging. This may foreshadow similar movements of public opinion and politics in 2020.

This president for the Republican Party may well be a case of “give’m enough rope.”
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

User avatar
DavidMS
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:22 pm
Location: Virgina
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#95 Post by DavidMS » Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:15 am

From a personal perspective, since its not my body, its not my choice. Women are moral actors.

What angers me about these restrictions is that in my religious tradition, there are some occasions where a woman is religiously obligated to terminate a pregnancy and these laws infringe on her religious freedom. The Forward covers this issue here: https://forward.com/life/faith/406465/w ... d-judaism/

User avatar
TrueTexan
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 15583
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:28 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: The "Crazy" part of Denton Texas
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#96 Post by TrueTexan » Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:27 pm

Here’s a good article on how dark money laundering by Reptilians brought about the Alabama abortion laws.
As the 2010 elections neared, Mike Hubbard had a huge dream and an even bigger dilemma. The chairman of Alabama’s Republican Party wanted to end the Democrats’ 136-year hammerlock over the state legislature. If Hubbard could surf an anti-Barack Obama wave and capture control of Montgomery, he thought, it would be the most “monumental public achievement” in Alabama’s modern political history.

But erasing a 60-43 Democratic edge in Alabama’s House of Representatives and a 20-15 advantage in the state Senate would cost millions. All that cash would not be easy to raise in a poor state, let alone one that wasn’t high on the national party’s list of midterm elections priorities. Unless, that is, he found some way to evade Alabama’s campaign finance laws. Not unexpectedly, Hubbard found his loophole.

When Alabama joined Ohio, Georgia and other states this month in enacting the most restrictive new abortion bans in decades, many political observers mentioned the crucial role that partisan gerrymandering played in creating legislatures — and entrenching legislators — that are much more conservative than the state’s citizens. And like so much in our politics, Alabama’s abortion law does have its roots in redistricting.

Alabama’s story, however, might be more sordid and corrupt than any other state. That fall, Alabama Republicans captured those historic supermajorities in the state legislature, thanks to ads that proclaimed: “After 136 years, the Democrats have brought us Obama, Pelosi, government health care, liberal policies, higher taxes, and wasteful spending.” Hubbard became speaker of the house and immediately pushed the state’s politics hard right.

Much of the necessary funding, however — more than $1 million — arrived through an unconventional arrangement of questionable legality with the Republican State Leadership Committee. The RSLC was home to the GOP’s national redistricting strategy. These were the operatives behind a plan called REDMAP — short for the Redistricting Majority Project — that dropped $30 million into a handful of state legislative races that fall, seeking to ensure GOP control of the 2011 redistricting cycle in as many states as possible.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/how-a- ... rtion-ban/
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

User avatar
ErikO
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 15596
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 10:49 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: St Louis, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#97 Post by ErikO » Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:49 pm

Impotent rage. That is all I have here in Missouri.
In a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich the chicken and cow are involved while the pig is committed.

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 18868
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#98 Post by CDFingers » Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:38 pm

Posting for a friend.

femaledonttreadonme.jpg

Go. Fight. Win.

CDFingers
ImageImage
Life may be sweeter for this, I don't know.
See how it feels in the end.

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 4020
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#99 Post by featureless » Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:44 pm

That's awesome, CD.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13317
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#100 Post by highdesert » Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:47 pm

Bowing to pressure from the anti-abortion lobby, the Trump administration said Wednesday that it will end a contract with the University of California that used human fetal tissue to research treatments for infectious diseases such as HIV and the Zika virus. The research, performed at the division of experimental medicine at UC San Francisco, received more than $2 million in funding from the National Institutes of Health last year. In December, however, the Department of Health and Human Services placed the contract on a series of 90-day extensions pending a review of all research involving “human fetal tissue from elective abortions.”

Health and Human Services said that with the current extension expiring Wednesday “there will be no further extensions.” Neither UC nor the lab conducting the research responded immediately to a request for comment. The decision promptly drew fire from medical experts who pointed out that fetal tissue research has been part of the battle against infectious disease for decades. “Fetal tissue research has led to major scientific advances, including the virtual elimination of polio, measles and rubella in the U.S.,” said a statement from the Guttmacher Institute, which supports research into sexual and reproductive health. “Fetal tissue research is also used in the development of vaccines against Ebola and HIV, the study of human development, and efforts to treat and cure conditions that affect millions of people across the United States,” the institute said. “Despite the President’s pledge to ‘end the HIV epidemic,’ today’s announcement poses a direct threat to crucial research to find treatments for HIV and other health threats.”

The research turned into a cause celebre last year for the religious right wing, which asserts that it prompts women to undergo abortions in order to fill “a demand for human body parts that must be taken from babies who are aborted.” Experts say this is a fantasy. “There’s no evidence that the opportunity to donate tissue from fetal remains has ever led anyone to choose to have an abortion she might not otherwise have chosen,” says R. Alta Charo, a bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin. “In no way does it affect the number of abortions. In no way does it affect the number of fetuses that die.” The research, however, aims to find treatments for conditions that disproportionately affect younger patients. “So for purely symbolic reasons, this is halting research that might actually save babies and children,” Charo told me.

The announcement reflects a pattern in the Trump administration of allowing ideological considerations to outweigh scientific judgment. “In reproductive health, climate change, the effect of pollution, we’re seeing a defiance of scientific fact when it comes to setting policy,” Charo says. The fetal tissues are used to “humanize” lab mice by replicating human-like immune systems. Researchers say there are no suitable alternatives to the research method, and the government hasn’t identified any. HHS in its announcement Wednesday said it has allocated $20 million “to develop, demonstrate, and validate experimental models that do not rely on human fetal tissue from elective abortions.”

Health and Human Services tied its decision directly to White House policy. “Promoting the dignity of human life from conception to natural death is one of the very top priorities of President Trump’s administration,” its announcement said. The decision encompasses a discontinuance of research conducted internally at the National Institutes of Healthusing fetal tissue from elective abortions. Current grants to outside scientists will be allowed to run out to the end of their approval period. Renewals and new research grants to outside scientists using the method will be subjected to review by a new ethics advisory board that will recommend “whether, in light of the ethical considerations, NIH should fund the research project,” Health and Human Services said.

That’s merely a device for blocking the research, Charo says. “We have had experience with this kind of thing before,” she says. During the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, embryo research was to be reviewed by an ethics board, “but President Reagan and President Bush never put anyone on the board. So scientifically valuable experiments were left to sit for 12 years” until the requirement was lifted by President Clinton. “This kind of review board can sound like action, but can be used for governmental inaction that prevents this research from going forward,” Charo says.
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzi ... story.html


This may have prompted it. Wouldn't be surprised if the Catholic bishops weren't behind it.
UC San Francisco announced Tuesday that it is dropping plans for an expanded affiliation with Dignity Health, a Catholic hospital chain that places flagrantly discriminatory restrictions on abortions, transgender care and other services. The decision was announced in a letter to the UCSF community and “concerned citizens” signed by Sam Hawgood, the USCF chancellor, and Mark Laret, CEO of UCSF Health, who had been pushing hard for the plan in presentations to the UC regents. UC San Francisco announced Tuesday that it is dropping plans for an expanded affiliation with Dignity Health, a Catholic hospital chain that places flagrantly discriminatory restrictions on abortions, transgender care and other services.

The decision was announced in a letter to the UCSF community and “concerned citizens” signed by Sam Hawgood, the USCF chancellor, and Mark Laret, CEO of UCSF Health, who had been pushing hard for the plan in presentations to the UC regents. In a separate statement, the administration said it wouldn’t bring any proposals regarding Dignity Health before the regents at upcoming meetings in June and July. It said the affiliation plan had been “still under discussion and had not been finalized” before the decision was made to abandon it. UCSF said that previous arrangements with Dignity hospitals in the Bay Area, which dealt with clinical programs on a limited scale, would continue.

In an emailed statement, Dignity Health said, “We have heard and understand the concerns raised by UCSF faculty and others relating to the proposed partnership between Dignity Health and UCSF Health, and agree that we cannot move forward with the partnership as originally planned.” The decision reflects concerns that had been raised among UCSF medical professionals and advocates for women’s healthcare and LGBTQ advocates about the proposed affiliation. The deal would have tightened UCSF’s relationship with Dignity’s four Bay Area hospitals — Dominican Hospital in Santa Cruz, Sequoia Hospital in Redwood City, and St. Francis Memorial and St. Mary’s Medical Center in San Francisco.

As we’ve been reporting, those concerns stemmed from Dignity’s adherence to Catholic Church dictates regarding women’s reproductive healthcare and transgender services, among others. St. Mary’s and Dominican are designated as Catholic hospitals subject to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Service, known as ERDs. The ERDs, a creation of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, ban “direct abortions,” in vitro fertilization, contraception, assisted suicide and “gender-affirming care” such as hormone treatments and surgeries for transgender patients. They treat life as beginning from the moment of conception. (“Direct abortion” is not a medical but a Catholic term, signifying the termination of a pregnancy by destroying a developing fetus anytime after conception.) They vest the ultimate judgments about whether to allow those services, even in emergencies, to local bishops rather than doctors.

Sequoia and St. Francis are designated as non-Catholic hospitals within Dignity Health. They are subject to the church’s less restrictive “statement of common values,” which bars “direct abortions,” physician-assisted suicide and fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization — the only way, as the petition states, that gay and lesbian couples can conceive a biological child — but allow some other services banned by the ERDs. The proposed affiliation with the Catholic healthcare system threatened to place UCSF on the wrong side of the movement for women’s reproductive health and transgender rights—especially as those those rights face attack across the nation.

“We’ve heard a growing chorus of concern from multiple stakeholders over the last several weeks,” Vanessa Jacoby, an associate OB-GYN professor at UCSF and a leading opponent of the proposal, “particularly in light of the passage of very severe anti-abortion legislation in many states and the stripping down of transgender anti-discrimination protections by the [Trump] administration.”
The affiliation proposal split the faculty at UCSF, the premier medical teaching institution of the University of California. UCSF administrators asserted that the affiliation was necessary to alleviate a capacity shortage at the university’s medical center, which says it had to turn away 855 patient transfers last year for lack of available beds.

More than 1,500 faculty members, alumni, students and others signed a petition urging the administration to drop the plan, however. Several faculty members raised questions about the arrangement to the regents’ health services committee in April and December and at a meeting of the full regents board in early May.
The proposed affiliation underscored issues associated with the expanding influence exercised over U.S. healthcare by Catholic hospitals, which today account for one out of six of all hospital beds. In some communities — including some in California — alternatives to Catholic hospitals are geographically inaccessible. That can place legal medical procedures such as abortions and sterilizations effectively out of reach for many patients.
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzi ... story.html
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 10 guests