Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

Yeah, I did say that. Now if you’d point to where I made the comparison to how safe or unsafe pregnancy and giving birth are by comparison, that’d be more useful than accusing me of driving the thread up a blind alley, which is what I was referring to. I take it as a given that you think every post I make is BS, but I don’t take that personally.

And, in related news, Indiana is investigating the doctor (i.e., harassment by government officials) that provided the medical abortion to the 10 year old. The pregnant child was 6 weeks and 3 days pregnant. Can't terminate that pregnancy, nuh-uh.

10 years old, fortunate to be able to travel to another state, and the Doctor now getting harassed about it. This is the impact of Dobbs.

Speaking of Dobbs, a very interesting article from Slate titled "Amy Coney Barrett is in over her head" about the handmaid, highlighting her massive inability as a Justice. She's going to be a useless rubber-stamp for decades. Some of us thought this obvious from the get-go. Heck, some of her classmates signed a petition against her being nominated to the SCOTUS:

No one has argued that if in a particular case an abortion is unsafe it should be given. No one has said that and nor does it require abortion laws to enforce that, there are already laws around general medical practice. 

Are we now just going to overlook the fact that politicians and abortion rights advocates in the US have since Roe v Wade benefitted from the idea of providing for abortion with the rhetoric that it is “safe, legal and rare”? That’s my point. I don’t think anyone should, and I think they behaved irresponsibly in doing so. Never mind lessons in sex education, lessons in civics education would have proven to be far more useful IMO to give people a basic understanding of the laws which govern their society, instead of promoting the idea of a right to abortion being absolute.

Yes people have to make abortion decisions, and any decision around the framework of the law. Doesn't mean it is a smart law. Honestly at this point I have no clue what your point is as your posts seem to contradict.

There’s nothing contradictory in my posts. You claimed that the law prevents a safer decision by forcing the risk of birth, and that the Government is demanding a riskier course of action. I understood what you meant, but neither the law nor Government does either of those things.

The decision in Roe v Wade wasn’t particularly smart either as it didn’t resolve anything in practice, it simply led to the last 50 years of conflict between Federal and States laws in a country of over 300m people with vastly differing opinions and beliefs in regards to abortion and the protection of human life. The right to procreate exists in the Constitution, the right to an abortion does not, it never did, and the decision in Roe v Wade while ideologically it was seen as the right thing to do at the time, it had no Constitutional foundation, least of all claiming that it could be derived from a right to privacy which limits States interference in peoples private lives, while at the same time acknowledging the States interests in when a woman becomes pregnant.

EDIT: You might be wondering why that’s important. Well when people are in desperate situations, they can be coerced into doing pretty much anything, even when it goes against everything they believe in -

https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2020/09/14/in-the-1970s-racism-led-to-women-being-sterilized-against-their-will-could-it-happen-again/

It was only a matter of time before control of regulation and determination of their own laws in relation to abortion was put back to each individual States legislature.

While campaigning you don’t know how your congress will look. His congress didn’t have the votes for codifying abortion.

… that would not refute that assessment at all.

Presidents don’t use their acceptance or inaugural speech to say all the promises they have to break this term because they don’t have the votes. It came back up 3 months into office to be discussed.

What’s disingenuous is attempting to make a comparison between two different concepts that aren’t even in the same ballpark. Even if I’d never witnessed a woman giving birth, I’d still be able to understand the concept that ‘safe’, is a relative term.

It’s certainly not the first term that springs to mind after witnessing a woman giving birth, but they involve completely different risks, expectations and outcomes. As technologically advanced as medicine and science have become, transporter technology remains firmly within the realm of science fiction.

Well, how many people die from failed abortions vs. in childbirth? Numbers don't lie (and the latter results in far more deaths.) Abortion is safer than carrying a fetus to term. Full stop.

I think your rejoinder is, "You can't compare them as one is about termination of pregnancy, and the other is about leaving the pregnancy to run its term." But, they are intimately related - both begin with a pregnant person. If, in fact you were concerned about the risk of pregnancy, you'd abort right away. But, no one rightfully does that analysis.

I just don't think that conclusion gets us anywhere.

I never applied any comparison in the first place, my point was that there are risks involved in abortion and the message of “safe, legal and rare” or going on about how safe abortions are, is an obfuscatory sales pitch rather than attempting to inform and educate the general public about abortion. I’d expect it of young influencers on social media -

https://www.thejournal.ie/does-vitamin-c-iburofen-mugwort-tea-papaya-cause-abortion-5807471-Jul2022/?amp=1

I don’t expect it of people in positions of authority who have a responsibility to provide information that isn’t misleading. That’s why I acknowledged that to their credit, PP does state this information on their website. It’s probably not the first result that comes up if anyone is searching for the terms “termination of pregnancy” though -

https://www.euronews.com/amp/2022/06/22/us-lawmakers-demand-action-from-google-over-fake-abortion-clinics

Bit late to find out the terms “termination of pregnancy” are relative too when it’s not the outcome the patient was expecting.

But, no one rightfully does that analysis.

They do, and they decide based upon what information is available to them, that the outcome is worth the risks involved. It doesn’t follow that being concerned about the risks of pregnancy means the only reasonable conclusion is an abortion, unless you ask Richard Dawkins. I wouldn’t though, because he’s an idiot.

I can agree with that: politicization can lead to misrepresented clinical information either side.

I can see why people might conflate the GOAL "safe, legal, and rare" with the actual status, but I wouldn't. And I think most patients know any time they go through any procedure, especially an invasive one, that there are nonzero risks. Whether or not they initially received obfuscation, the clinicians who are - frankly brave enough in the United States to perform these medical procedure are not the people at the last mile who will obfuscate them further, they will explain the risks, their unique medical situation, and the options (but I am happy to be corrected with evidence of abortion malpractice related to misinforming the patients).

Seems legit; no corrections or repudiations from Dawkins after publication that I can find.

You're not adding anything that hasn't already been said here. It was in the ACA, the Congress wouldn't accept it, it was removed. They prioritized the Affordable Care Act over the Freedom of Choice Act, yes, which Senator Obama had cosponsored. You'll find that it's not a very effective attack on Obama.

He stated he would have loved to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as his first action as President, but that clearly was never on the cards, it's not up to POTUS to sign so much as up to the accompanying Congress to pass.

Grand so. Back to attacking Republican nutters.

As was inevitable, TX is leading a suit against the federal govt against the EO invoking federal emergency care laws to enforce medically necessary abortions.