Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

So some of the male S.C. justices are having to rely on the canard that the Texas laws on facility building structure being questioned are NOT connected in any way with the facility closures, that it's just coincidental. I'm hoping that it's just devil's advocate work to get both sides to state their cases to the best of their ability. Hopefully the Texan AG will trip up, flounder and be forced to state in open court that the new state laws governing the abortion clinics are just a deliberate plan to subvert the pregnant woman's lawful right to right to an abortion.

It's a bit disingenuous claiming they're "having to rely on the canard"; it very much supposes that they've made a decision and are looking to justify it rather than that they're considering the evidence before coming to a judgment (and if that were the case they wouldn't suggest sending it back to a lower case for more evidence), and if it is in fact true that the regulations didn't cause the closures, it's fairly salient. I would have thought it's no more than due diligence to ensure as much evidence as can be presented is made available to them before they make a decision.
I'm also pretty unimpressed with the tone of the various commentaries presenting the SC as separating on gender lines (which trickles down to statements noting that it's male Justices looking for this information, rather than simply Justices); their individual opinions are obviously fairly well documented, but simply dividing them into the male and female SJCs with the implicit assumption that the women are pro choice and the men are pro life is ridiculous.

Cabaal

Anything Good In The Irish Catholic?

PopePalpatine

"The culture of deference and child abuse." I'm guessing the Litigious One's column is going to be a pile of "what about victims in state care"?

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

I'm not sure about the mosaic, I preferred the simple white marble thing they had going on.

Cabaal

PopePalpatine wrote: »

"The culture of deference and child abuse." I'm guessing the Litigious One's column is going to be a pile of "what about victims in state care"?

You can always have a read http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/spotlight-needed-culture-deference

Not so much state care but...what about the BBC victims?!?

MrPudding

robdonn wrote: »

And another.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2016/03/in_oral_arguments_for_the_texas_abortion_case_the_three_female_justices.single.html

Notorious RBG. Legend.

MrP

volchitsa

aloyisious wrote: »

So some of the male S.C. justices are having to rely on the canard that the Texas laws on facility building structure being questioned are NOT connected in any way with the facility closures, that it's just coincidental. I'm hoping that it's just devil's advocate work to get both sides to state their cases to the best of their ability. Hopefully the Texan AG will trip up, flounder and be forced to state in open court that the new state laws governing the abortion clinics are just a deliberate plan to subvert the pregnant woman's lawful right to right to an abortion.

The article from Slate that was posted by robdonn just now, about the four liberal/feminist judges (including all three female judges, not even one female judge on the anti-choice side, unsurprisingly IMV but contrary to claims often made by pro-life supporters in Ireland) asking awkward, yet crucial, questions of the proponents of the Texas law was excellent.

It's quite long but really worth reading, and worth quoting from, I think.

When the Supreme Court last heard oral arguments in a landmark abortion case, it was April 1992, the case was Planned Parenthood v Casey, and Sandra Day O’Connor was the lone female justice.

Twenty-four years later, there are three women on the court. And if you count Justice Stephen Breyer as one of history’s great feminists—and I do—then you can view the arguments in this term’s landmark abortion case, Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt, as creating a neat 4–4 split. On one side, you have a group of testy male justices needling a female lawyer for Texas clinics about whether it was even appropriate for them to hear this appeal. On the other, you’ve got four absolutely smoking hot feminists pounding on Texas’ solicitor general for passing abortion regulations that have no plausible health purpose and also seem pretty stupid.

It felt as if, for the first time in history, the gender playing field at the high court was finally leveled

Each of the female justices takes a whacking stick to the very notion that abortion—one of the safest procedures on record—requires rural women to haul ass across land masses larger than the whole state of California in order to take a pill, in the presence of a doctor, in a surgical theater.

There's a lot more to the article than that, btw, that's just the general thrust of it.

Actually what the heck, here's a bit more of it, with some of the most important technical arguments. The bolding is mine.

...
At around this point, Sotomayor decides that she has some things to say: “There’s two types of early abortion­­ at play here. The medical abortion, that doesn't involve any hospital procedure. A doctor prescribes two pills, and the women take the pills at home, correct?” Toti explains that the woman has to take them at the abortion facility under Texas law.

Sotomayor is back: “I'm sorry. What? She has to come back two separate days to take them? ... When she could take it at home, it’s­­ now she has to travel 200 miles or pay for a hotel to get those two days of treatment?”

Toti confirms that there is no reputable evidence that there is a medical benefit to having a medication abortion at “a ­multi-million­-dollar surgical facility.”

Then Sotomayor asks why a dilation and curettage associated with a miscarriage can be performed in a doctor’s office whereas a basically identical D&C must be performed in an ambulatory surgical center when it’s for an abortion. Toti replies, and Sotomayor keeps talking. The chief thanks Toti but Sotomayor forges on, wondering if any other medical procedures require taking pills in a hospital. No, says Toti. Sotomayor is finally content to rest her case.

Ginsburg begins by asking Keller how many Texas women live more than 100 miles from an abortion clinic. When he tells her that women in El Paso can hop over the border to New Mexico, she stops him short. “That’s odd,” she muses, “that you point to the New Mexico facility. New Mexico doesn't have any surgical ASC requirement, and it doesn't have any admitting requirement. So if your argument is right, then New Mexico is not an available way out for Texas because Texas says to protect our women, we need these things.”

Then Kennedy asks Keller a surprising question: Is the effect of this law “to increase surgical abortions as distinct from medical abortions,” he wonders, because “this may not be medically wise.”

Now it’s over to Breyer: “The first law says that a doctor at the abortion clinic must have admitting privileges in a hospital … nearby, right?” Yes, says Keller. “Where in the record will I find evidence of women who had complications, who could not get to a hospital, even though there was a working transfer arrangement … because the doctor himself has to have admitting privileges? Which were the women? On what page does it tell me their names, what the complications were, and why that happened?”

Keller replies that this isn’t in the record. Breyer continues, “So Judge Posner then seems to be correct where he says he could find in the entire nation, in his opinion, only one arguable example of such a thing, and he’s not certain that even that one is correct.” Breyer leans in, “What is the benefit to the woman of a procedure that is going to cure a problem of which there is not one single instance in the nation, though perhaps there is one, but not in Texas.” People laugh.

Then it’s Kagan who moves in. “You said that as the law is now … Texas is allowed to set much, much higher medical standards, whether it has to do with the personnel or procedures or the facilities themselves, higher medical standards … for abortion facilities than for facilities that do any other kind of medical work, even much more risky medical work? Am I right?”

Keller agrees. Then Kagan asks: “And I guess I just want to know, why would Texas do that?” The room erupts. Keller says complications. Kagan says that liposuction actually has greater complications. Keller says Kermit Gosnell. Kagan says nothing that happened in the Gosnell case could have occurred under Texas’ pre-existing regulations. Sotomayor says colonoscopies have more complications. Finally, Keller says, “But legislatures react to topics that are of public concern.” And that is what matters. Not women’s health. Politics.

volchitsa

MrPudding wrote: »

Notorious RBG. Legend.

MrP

She is, but when you also have a male judge who votes as consistently along feminist lines as Stephen Breyer does, it's also important IMO to give him the credit he deserves for that.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/08/justice_stephen_breyer_feminist.html (from Slate in 2014)

The Fourth Feminist

In fact, it seems to me that the best possible takeaway from this past term is not that the court’s three women spent June tearing their hair out over those two cases, but that the bald white guy quietly joined them. Nobody doubts that these opinions and dissents lift off because they are written by Ginsburg. But nobody should forget that they matter because they are joined by Breyer.

MrPudding

volchitsa wrote: »

The article from Slate that was posted by robdonn just now, about the four liberal/feminist judges (including all three female judges, not even one female judge on the anti-choice side, unsurprisingly IMV but contrary to claims often made by pro-life supporters in Ireland) asking awkward, yet crucial, questions of the proponents of the Texas law was excellent.

It's quite long but really worth reading, and worth quoting from, I think.



There's a lot more to the article than that, btw, that's just the general thrust of it.

Actually what the heck, here's a bit more of it, with some of the most important technical arguments. The bolding is mine.

I liked this bit too, but then I am a bit of an RBG fan:

wrote:

Ginsburg begins by asking Keller how many Texas women live more than 100 miles from an abortion clinic. When he tells her that women in El Paso can hop over the border to New Mexico, she stops him short. “That’s odd,” she muses, “that you point to the New Mexico facility. New Mexico doesn't have any surgical ASC requirement, and it doesn't have any admitting requirement. So if your argument is right, then New Mexico is not an available way out for Texas because Texas says to protect our women, we need these things.” (This is where I want to call up each of the men who demanded that Ginsburg retire in 2014 and just smile, and smile, and smile.)

Seems like a case of exporting abortions... Sound familiar?

MrP

robdonn

Amnesty International/Red C poll reveals Irish public want expanded access to abortion to be a political priority for incoming government

5%* - Abortion illegal in all circumstances.

7% - When the woman's life is at risk (current legislation).

7% - When the woman's life is at risk and fatal foetal abnormality.

42% - When the woman's life is at risk, fatal foetal abnormality, woman's health is at risk and pregnancy is result of rape or incest.

38% - Access to abortion as they choose.


*Of the 5% opposed to abortion in all circumstances, 77% are not aware of the possible 14 year criminal penalty for women who have abortions.

---

Half of Irish people think freer abortion access should be priority for next government - thejournal.ie

MORE THAN HALF of Irish people think expanding access to abortion in this country should be a priority issue for the next government.

According to a poll by Red C, commissioned by Amnesty International Ireland, one quarter of people disagreed, with the rest saying they were either neutral or didn’t know.

Almost three quarters of the people polled think there should be a referendum to allow the people to vote on the Eighth amendment. This view is widely shared across all regions, from 65% in Connaught/Ulster to 75% in Dublin.

When it comes to allowing abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or fatal foetal abnormality, 42% said they were in favour. A further 38% were in favour of allowing women to access abortion as they choose.

Only 5% of people in the poll were opposed to abortion in all circumstances.

...

When asked who they trusted most when deciding their position, the majority said medical professionals and women who have had abortions. They rely less on politicians, the media, church leaders and anti-abortion groups when forming their opinions.

Most Irish people want abortion decriminalised - Amnesty International poll - Independent.ie

The survey by Red C found:
:: 69% of people called for expansion of Ireland's abortion law to be a priority issue for the next government, when "don't knows" and those who were neutral are excluded.

:: 68% described the ban on abortion as "cruel and inhumane", also when undecideds and neutrals are excluded.

:: Politicians, anti-abortion groups, media and church leaders are the least trusted sources of information on the issue.

:: 87% of people want access to abortion expanded and 72% want it decriminalised.

:: More than half of people agreed that Ireland's abortion laws are cruel and inhumane.

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

It's a bit disingenuous claiming they're "having to rely on the canard"; it very much supposes that they've made a decision and are looking to justify it rather than that they're considering the evidence before coming to a judgment (and if that were the case they wouldn't suggest sending it back to a lower case for more evidence), and if it is in fact true that the regulations didn't cause the closures, it's fairly salient.

Well, this is interesting because many people think, including some of my lecturers, that many judges come at decisions the wrong way round. Do you actually think that evidence would have influenced, for example, Scalia, when it came to abortion? I don't think so.

Absolam wrote: »

I would have thought it's no more than due diligence to ensure as much evidence as can be presented is made available to them before they make a decision.

The law came in, the clinics closed. The law was suspended, the clinics re-opened. What more evidence do you need?

Perhaps I am being cynical, but I suspect there might be an anterior motive behind trying to send it back. As it stands, the decision being appealed is the decision to suspend the law. IN its current format the SC is likely to be deadlocked. If that is the case then the decision being appealed stands, so the law would not be enforced, abortion continues.

If it goes back to the local courts this buys time to get another conservative in the SC so if it come back as is, then the conservatives will have it. There is also a chance it will get reversed locally, which means if the SC is still deadlocked the conservatives win. But maybe I am just too cynical.

Absolam wrote: »

I'm also pretty unimpressed with the tone of the various commentaries presenting the SC as separating on gender lines (which trickles down to statements noting that it's male Justices looking for this information, rather than simply Justices); their individual opinions are obviously fairly well documented, but simply dividing them into the male and female SJCs with the implicit assumption that the women are pro choice and the men are pro life is ridiculous.

Yet, this is pretty much exactly what we see.

MrP

volchitsa

MrPudding wrote: »

Well, this is interesting because many people think, including some of my lecturers, that many judges come at decisions the wrong way round. Do you actually think that evidence would have influenced, for example, Scalia, when it came to abortion? I don't think so.

Of course it wouldn't, he never made any secret of the fact that he was against allowing abortion and against the Roe-Wade judgment full stop. Evidence had nothing to do with his views.

MrPudding wrote: »

Yet, this is pretty much exactly what we see.

MrP

IMO what's significant is that all of the female judges are clearly convinced of the need for access to abortion to be maintained. All of the judges who are a priori against this are male. Obviously over a larger population there will be more "crossovers" but I think the basic male female breakdown is anything but coincidental all the same.

Cabaal

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-government-2641166-Mar2016/

MORE THAN HALF of Irish people think expanding access to abortion in this country should be a priority issue for the next government.

Only 5% of people in the poll were opposed to abortion in all circumstances....

The poll reveals more than half of Irish people believe this country’s abortion ban is “cruel and inhumane”.

So...do the so called "pro-life" groups still think a majority of Ireland wants the current bans to remain in place?

MrPudding

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-government-2641166-Mar2016/





So...do the so called "pro-life" groups still think Ireland wants the current bans to remain in place?

But, but... Ireland is a catholic country. LOL. A catholic country that couldn't give a flying fcuk at a rolling donut what that disgusting organisation, otherwise known as the Holy Roman Catholic Church, say.

MrP

Cabaal

MrPudding wrote: »

But, but... Ireland is a catholic country. LOL. A catholic country that couldn't give a flying fcuk at a rolling donut what that disgusting organisation, otherwise known as the Holy Roman Catholic Church, say.

MrP

A catholic country where the majority ignore the catholic church's teachings on marriage and gay people, divorce and condom use etc

But...but...its still catholic!
:rolleyes:

aloyisious

This in the irish Times is on the same poll.... http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/poll-finds-38-in-favour-of-giving-women-access-to-abortion-1.2559874. Not meaning or wanting anyone to post a contrary or questioning "do you think, etc" - to which I won't respond - I think it's remarkable that a poll on a single topic has such a broad frontage release in the Irish media. I applaud Amnesty and Red C for their work on the poll.

aloyisious

@ Cabaal & Mr P :eek: surely not!

Timberrrrrrrr

aloyisious wrote: »

@ Cabaal & Mr P :eek: surely not!

Checks to see if he'll has frozen over.





Nope....still toasty warm ☺

Cabaal

Some people might see this as close to the bone, but **** its spot on.

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2016/03/04/government-to-hand-out-free-hangers-to-women-who-cant-afford-trip-to-england/

Government To Hand Out Free Hangers To Women Who Can’t Afford Trip To England

IN order to fend off any attempt by Repeal The 8th campaigners to pressure for a referendum on abortion in Ireland, the government has launched an innovative and forward thinking initiative which can serve as an alternative to an expensive trip to England.

“It’s a gentle and understanding tightrope we’re balancing on here. We don’t want to be seen condoning things like abortions, but if women find themselves in situations where the hangers could an option, given desperates circumstances, then who are we to deny them,” a spokesperson for the Irish Commission On Things We Don’t Talk About (ICOTWDTA) explained.

MrPudding

Cabaal wrote: »

Some people might see this as close to the bone, but **** its spot on.

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2016/03/04/government-to-hand-out-free-hangers-to-women-who-cant-afford-trip-to-england/

Harsh, but perhaps that's what it is going to take.

MrP

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

Well, this is interesting because many people think, including some of my lecturers, that many judges come at decisions the wrong way round. Do you actually think that evidence would have influenced, for example, Scalia, when it came to abortion? I don't think so.

I imagine every time someone disagrees with a decision they think it was arrived at wrongly. Yes, I think Scalia was as opposed to abortion as Ginsberg favours choice; I think they both as SCJs felt/feel obliged to consider the evidence nonetheless.

MrPudding wrote: »

The law came in, the clinics closed. The law was suspended, the clinics re-opened. What more evidence do you need?

I don't want anything; I expect Kennedy & Alito are likely want evidence of causation rather than correlation though.

MrPudding wrote: »

Perhaps I am being cynical, but I suspect there might be an anterior motive behind trying to send it back. As it stands, the decision being appealed is the decision to suspend the law. IN its current format the SC is likely to be deadlocked. If that is the case then the decision being appealed stands, so the law would not be enforced, abortion continues.

That's certainly a possibility; both that you're being cynical and that there's an ulterior motive. Equally possible there's a rush to suspend or force repeal of the law before it becomes apparent that the facts are not as they're being presented; that's cynicism from the other side. A full accounting of the facts would put paid to such speculation from either side.

MrPudding wrote: »

If it goes back to the local courts this buys time to get another conservative in the SC so if it come back as is, then the conservatives will have it. There is also a chance it will get reversed locally, which means if the SC is still deadlocked the conservatives win. But maybe I am just too cynical.

Possibly; the assumption there is the Justices will decide according to their prejudices regardless of the obligations as, well, Justices. Sotomayor has shown she's not afraid to strike down pro-choice litigation if there is legal cause, and Kennedy has swung either way depending on what he thought was right and precedented at the time. Kagan has also shown her support for abortion is not unlimited, so it's not a forlorn hope that the Justices might be more motivated by their responsibilities than any political or personal leaning.

MrPudding wrote: »

Yet, this is pretty much exactly what we see.

Which is my point; there's a lot more to all of them than what is being presented in such articles.

Hotblack Desiato

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-government-2641166-Mar2016/

So 5% of the population would rather allow women to die than permit abortion? Some pretty sick puppies out there.

PopePalpatine

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So 5% of the population would rather allow women to die than permit abortion? Some pretty sick puppies out there.

I'm hoping that they just don't think that it actually counts as an abortion if it's to save a woman's life.

Then again, the RCC (under JP2's reign) canonised a woman who died rather than have an abortion.

The Randy Riverbeast

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So 5% of the population would rather allow women to die than permit abortion? Some pretty sick puppies out there.

Ive seen it before, something like direct abortion and life saving medical treatment.

Direct abortion is bad and is when you go all Indiana Jones on it to intentially kill a child.

Life saving medical treatment is when the woman is dying so they attempt to save her by giving an abortion but it's ok because you arent trying to kill children.

So as pope said, abortion is baby killing which is always bad, the other thing isnt really abortion because any baby killing is an accident.

aloyisious

I do not know if any of the other local TV news programmes have covered the poll and don't know if it's possible to get a link (please pardon the absence of same) but UTV's News: Ireland live at 10 programme ran a short interview with Colm O'Gorman (Amnesty) and Cora Sherlock (anti abortion) on their views on the poll and women and abortion. I came across it channel-hopping so missed the start. The item was short due to news presentation needs.

Samaris

At least it sounds like a poll with a decent number of options. One of the biggest issues as regards the abortion debate is that it absolutely will get polarised into baby-killer or nothing. Hello Divorce, Bye-Bye Daddy is a tagline that comes to mind. Whereas when you get down to it, even the most staunch pro-choice person will generally not sanction (or really would not like the idea of) say, very late-term abortions, and almost all pro-lifers wouldn't force a woman who -will die- from childbirth to go through with the pregnancy. We get some options, but not many when it comes to these polls. I don't say there aren't extremists on both sides, of course, but the debate tends to get couched in the more extreme terms that most of us don't fall into.

Underage
Rape
Incest
Accidental (birth control breaks, Pill is interfered with, etcetera)
Mental instability
Mental inability to make an informed choice
Inability to support a child
Illness up to and including risk to the mother's life
One night stands
Adultery


The list of potential reasons goes on, and people will often judge some circumstances more harshly and state that "the child" shouldn't have to pay for the mother's foolishness/wickedness/poor judgement, as if it's to be treated as a punishment.

volchitsa

Samaris wrote: »

At least it sounds like a poll with a decent number of options. One of the biggest issues as regards the abortion debate is that it absolutely will get polarised into baby-killer or nothing. Hello Divorce, Bye-Bye Daddy is a tagline that comes to mind. Whereas when you get down to it, even the most staunch pro-choice person will generally not sanction (or really would not like the idea of) say, very late-term abortions, and almost all pro-lifers wouldn't force a woman who -will die- from childbirth to go through with the pregnancy. We get some options, but not many when it comes to these polls. I don't say there aren't extremists on both sides, of course, but the debate tends to get couched in the more extreme terms that most of us don't fall into.

Underage
Rape
Incest
Accidental (birth control breaks, Pill is interfered with, etcetera)
Mental instability
Mental inability to make an informed choice
Inability to support a child
Illness up to and including risk to the mother's life
One night stands
Adultery


The list of potential reasons goes on, and people will often judge some circumstances more harshly and state that "the child" shouldn't have to pay for the mother's foolishness/wickedness/poor judgement, as if it's to be treated as a punishment.

Here's the thing though, deciding which reasons are good enough to "allow" someone to end their pregnancy means exactly what you say: that allowing pregnancy termination is not about any inherent right of the unborn child itself, but is actually about using enforced pregnancy, or the threat of it, to punish women for being careless or adulterous or whatever.

As an aside, it seems like a very bad idea to make someone become a parent against their will just to teach them a lesson - surely those are exactly the people we don't want becoming parents? Think of the damage they may do to those children.

frostyjacks

volchitsa wrote: »

As an aside, it seems like a very bad idea to make someone become a parent against their will just to teach them a lesson - surely those are exactly the people we don't want becoming parents? Think of the damage they may do to those children.

Worse damage than killing them in the womb? It's depressing that the pro-abortion lobby keep couching a little human life in terms of a burden or a infliction upon women.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Worse damage than killing them in the womb? It's depressing that the pro-abortion lobby keep couching a little human life in terms of a burden or a infliction upon women.

Says the person who's never actually been pregnant and doesn't know the burden or infliction involved. Should women traveling to kill little human lives be prevented from this?

Samaris

frostyjacks wrote: »

Worse damage than killing them in the womb? It's depressing that the pro-abortion lobby keep couching a little human life in terms of a burden or a infliction upon women.

Because yes, it can be. Not always, but there are circumstances where "a little human life" can be catastrophic to a woman who finds she has a small pre-human growing inside her against her choice, her will, or her ability to look after.