Roe v Wade likely to be overturned

[Al Capone Junior]

Conservative Christians, evangelicals, and right wing repugnicans have an unshakable belief that they are morally superior, and that this superiority is necessarily obvious and self evident to everyone else. Their complete lack of self awareness, combined with the implied otherness of everyone not in their tribe, allows them to take the position of being a complete dick to everyone and justify it morally and ethically in their own minds. After all, they are chosen by God and everyone else going to hell to be tortured and punished forever, and that this plan is the best thing that will ever happen. This makes them extremely belligerent and resistant to any efforts by out group persons to get them to change. They will typically digress to accusations of pedophilia, or of being in league with Satan, or both or worse, to anyone trying to make them see themselves in a more realistic light.

I can vouch for the large amount of frustration, aggravation and anger these ppl can bring out in you. This is why I generally don't interact with them at all if possible. They have succeeded in advance to shutting down any dialog that challenges their beliefs, which, BTW, are tightly woven into their self-worth.

At least this is my assessment from dealing with their crap all my life. It's not too far from truth, even if it's not a perfect description of their psychology or social structures

[Fishnut]

A woman with a non-viable pregnancy in Texas went to court to get approval for an abortion. Approval was given. Now the Texas Supreme Court has paused the ruling.

On Friday, the court said it was staying a Thursday ruling from a district court that allowed 31-year-old Katie Cox to have an abortion. Cox, who is 20 weeks pregnant, has a fetus that has been diagnosed with full trisomy, which is a condition that results in miscarriage, stillbirth or the death of the infant in the hours, days or weeks following the birth.
...
Cox’s doctors have said have said carrying her pregnancy to term will force a cesarean section or induction that would result in serious injury. If labor is induced in Cox’s case, she could face a uterine rupture due to previous C-sections. An additional C-section could also endanger her future fertility.

[IvanV]

A woman with a non-viable pregnancy in Texas went to court to get approval for an abortion. Approval was given. Now the Texas Supreme Court has paused the ruling.

On Friday, the court said it was staying a Thursday ruling from a district court that allowed 31-year-old Katie Cox to have an abortion. Cox, who is 20 weeks pregnant, has a fetus that has been diagnosed with full trisomy, which is a condition that results in miscarriage, stillbirth or the death of the infant in the hours, days or weeks following the birth.
...
Cox’s doctors have said have said carrying her pregnancy to term will force a cesarean section or induction that would result in serious injury. If labor is induced in Cox’s case, she could face a uterine rupture due to previous C-sections. An additional C-section could also endanger her future fertility.

The reason given...

“Future criminal and civil proceedings cannot restore the life that is lost if Plaintiffs or their agents proceed to perform and procure an abortion in violation of Texas law,” Texas Attorney General Paxton’s office said to the court, per The AP.

Which would appear to be a case of...

Conservative Christians, evangelicals, and right wing repugnicans have an unshakable belief that they are morally superior, and that this superiority is necessarily obvious and self evident to everyone else. Their complete lack of self awareness, combined with the implied otherness of everyone not in their tribe, allows them to take the position of being a complete dick to everyone and justify it morally and ethically in their own minds.

But I think there also those who are lacking such religious conviction, eg Trump, who find it useful to espouse such views for the effect of political subjugation of the disadvantaged.

There was a case like this in Ireland - although it was the decisions of doctors in light of what they saw the law to be rather than a court ruling - that resulted in the death of a woman with a non-viable pregnancy. I don't think it a coincidence that the change in the balance of view in Ireland on abortion changed shortly afterwards. But there were also some other shocking cases, which might also have played a large part.

We really shouldn't need martyrs for people to see how shocking this is. We can but hope that enough Texans are shocked by what the AG's office said on this to want to change their law.

[Fishnut]

There was a case like this in Ireland - although it was the decisions of doctors in light of what they saw the law to be rather than a court ruling - that resulted in the death of a woman with a non-viable pregnancy. I don't think it a coincidence that the change in the balance of view in Ireland on abortion changed shortly afterwards.

I think you're talking about Savita Halappanavar. Her death galvanised a lot of people and I think it was seen as 'enough is enough'. The waning influence of the Catholic Church in the country (aided by the sex abuse scandals and other horrors like Tuam and the Magdelene Laundries which were coming out around the same time) also helped people think that maybe the time has come to stop allowing religious organisations to dictate secular law.

I was living in Ireland at the time and stumbled on a protest outside the Department of the Taoiseach one evening not long after news of Savita's death broke.

When there was talk of repealing the 8th amendment there was a big protest in Dublin by anti-abortion groups. There was a counter protest which I attended. It was very clear to me that there was a lot of money being spent on/by these anti-abortion groups. The protesters were bussed in from all around the country and it seemed to be a lot of church groups. The reason I say that is because they had a lot of professionally printed signs

Abortion protest.jpg (32 KiB) Viewed 3783 times

and many of the churches came with banners or religious icons which their groups walked behind,

Church attendance at protests.jpg (34.53 KiB) Viewed 3783 times

One monk even sprinkled me and other counter-protesters with holy water as he walked by!

While the new law makes it possible to obtain a legalabortion in Ireland, it is still very restrictive. For example, there's a three day waiting period between requesting an abortion and having gestational age determined, which is especially problematic for women who live in rural areas. It also heavily restricts what counts as a legal abortion, providing a 'chilling effect' on doctors.

I don't know if it was ever proven but there was a lot of talk at the time of the debate that a lot of the anti-abortion campaign was being funded by groups from the US.

I don't think the situations in Ireland and Texas are that comparable. The change in Irish law was the result of decades of liberalisation and waning influence of the Church. Texas is the result of decades of religious and right-wing campaigning that has led to increasingly more restrictive legislation. While restricting abortion is not proving to be a successful policy in election campaigns, it has become such a central tenet of these groups that they would rather lose the battle if it means winning the war. So far, they are winning that war and women are suffering as a result.

[Fishnut]

A woman with a non-viable pregnancy in Texas went to court to get approval for an abortion. Approval was given. Now the Texas Supreme Court has paused the ruling.

On Friday, the court said it was staying a Thursday ruling from a district court that allowed 31-year-old Katie Cox to have an abortion. Cox, who is 20 weeks pregnant, has a fetus that has been diagnosed with full trisomy, which is a condition that results in miscarriage, stillbirth or the death of the infant in the hours, days or weeks following the birth.
...
Cox’s doctors have said have said carrying her pregnancy to term will force a cesarean section or induction that would result in serious injury. If labor is induced in Cox’s case, she could face a uterine rupture due to previous C-sections. An additional C-section could also endanger her future fertility.

She's left the state to get an abortion elsewhere. No idea what's going to happen to her if/when she returns.

[Martin_B]

A woman with a non-viable pregnancy in Texas went to court to get approval for an abortion. Approval was given. Now the Texas Supreme Court has paused the ruling.

On Friday, the court said it was staying a Thursday ruling from a district court that allowed 31-year-old Katie Cox to have an abortion. Cox, who is 20 weeks pregnant, has a fetus that has been diagnosed with full trisomy, which is a condition that results in miscarriage, stillbirth or the death of the infant in the hours, days or weeks following the birth.
...
Cox’s doctors have said have said carrying her pregnancy to term will force a cesarean section or induction that would result in serious injury. If labor is induced in Cox’s case, she could face a uterine rupture due to previous C-sections. An additional C-section could also endanger her future fertility.

She's left the state to get an abortion elsewhere. No idea what's going to happen to her if/when she returns.

I certainly agree that this woman would probably be best never returning to Texas, as she will almost certainly be prosecuted for the abortion.
However, would the law in Texas be capable of bringing a case against an abortion practitioner in another state (presumably one where abortion is legal)? Would they try the case in absentia, and raise a warrant for arrest of the doctor is they ever step foot in Texas, or possibly in neighbouring states which would honour an extradition treaty? That would raise a serious question of state's rights, particularly where an activity is legal in one state but not another (eg, possession of marijuana).

[Woodchopper]

A woman with a non-viable pregnancy in Texas went to court to get approval for an abortion. Approval was given. Now the Texas Supreme Court has paused the ruling.

She's left the state to get an abortion elsewhere. No idea what's going to happen to her if/when she returns.

I certainly agree that this woman would probably be best never returning to Texas, as she will almost certainly be prosecuted for the abortion.
However, would the law in Texas be capable of bringing a case against an abortion practitioner in another state (presumably one where abortion is legal)? Would they try the case in absentia, and raise a warrant for arrest of the doctor is they ever step foot in Texas, or possibly in neighbouring states which would honour an extradition treaty? That would raise a serious question of state's rights, particularly where an activity is legal in one state but not another (eg, possession of marijuana).

As far as I can tell, getting an abortion out of state isn’t illegal in Texas. If so she wouldn’t be prosecuted and neither would an out of state doctor https://www.aclutx.org/en/know-your-rig ... tion-texas

As far as I know, the Texas law punishes the person who performs the abortion and not the pregnant woman.
https://guides.sll.texas.gov/abortion-l ... -penalties

(Of course the woman could be punished if she performed the abortion on herself, but that isn’t the case here).

[IvanV]

As far as I know, the Texas law punishes the person who performs the abortion and not the pregnant woman.
https://guides.sll.texas.gov/abortion-l ... -penalties

It also punishes anyone who assisted, funded, or transported her out of state to have an abortion.

Never Rarely Sometimes Always is a poignant film about travelling to have an abortion in the US.

[Woodchopper]

As far as I know, the Texas law punishes the person who performs the abortion and not the pregnant woman.
https://guides.sll.texas.gov/abortion-l ... -penalties

It also punishes anyone who assisted, funded, or transported her out of state to have an abortion.

Never Rarely Sometimes Always is a poignant film about travelling to have an abortion in the US.

Good point.

[Fishnut]

A story of a woman who was unable to leave Texas for an abortion despite having a non-viable pregnancy. It doesn't pull any punches about what she went through and it's horrific.

[Fishnut]

Abortions are still legal until 20 weeks in Wisconsin. From the AP,

A Wisconsin judge on Tuesday reaffirmed her ruling from earlier this year that state law permits consensual medical abortions, handing abortion rights advocates a massive victory but opening up appellate options for conservatives.
...
The lawsuit is likely far from over. Tuesday’s ruling opens the door for conservatives to appeal and a case of this magnitude will likely end up before the state Supreme Court. Liberal justices currently control the court, making it likely that Schlipper’s ruling will stand.

[IvanV]

Alabama indirectly restricts IVF by ruling that an embryo is a person. This means that IVF clinics are at risk of homicide charges if they dispose of spare frozen embryos, or have accidents with them. In practice, it probably makes IVF infeasible to provide in Alabama, at least where the fertilisation hasn't already taken place. And they will have to think what to do about the embryos they already have.

I found it astonishing that pro-children conservatives would want to ban IVF. But it seems that there is a minority conservative grouping that wants to restrict women's freedoms to the extent that they would ban IVF, and much more beyond. And there has been an understanding among democrats that they might go after IVF next. I found this MSNBC item interesting (12 mins) for its analysis of all the potential ramifications, including this point.

But there really is no widespread popular opposition to IVF. It's not impossible that having their accustomed freedoms limited to that extent might turn a group of voters off the Republicans. There is a suggestion Trump recognises this is not a popular move, and would like to deflect from it.

The next obvious question after ruling an embryo is a person is whether you can get tax deductions for them...

[dyqik]

Republicans up for reelection in November have been pushing (identical, set by GOP leadership) statements that it's their opposition to restricting IVF.

But most of them are cosponsors of a bill that would implement Alabama's ruling nationwide, and which does not exempt IVF. Many of them have used IVF.

Twitter community notes is fun right now.

Meanwhile, this exact issue was raised in the dissenting opinion in Dobbs.

Many of the same people behind this ruling are also trying to ban all contraception, by the way.

[dyqik]

Another fun element is that if personhood really fully starts at conception, all embryos conceived in the US are American citizens. Many may be over 18, and thus have the right to vote. Those under 18 also count as children for child tax credit purposes and dependents for tax deduction purposes.

[Grumble]

https://youtube.com/shorts/IehHlR4BpAk? ... CMEAZ0AJhl

[monkey]

Alabama state politicians, Rep and Dem, are trying to rush through legislation to put a fix in for this.

Alabama state politicians where also told this would happen before passing the abortion law.

[Woodchopper]

I found it astonishing that pro-children conservatives would want to ban IVF. But it seems that there is a minority conservative grouping that wants to restrict women's freedoms to the extent that they would ban IVF, and much more beyond. And there has been an understanding among democrats that they might go after IVF next. I found this MSNBC item interesting (12 mins) for its analysis of all the potential ramifications, including this point.

I don't find it astonishing. Banning IVF follows inevitably from their belief that at any stage of development a foetus has a soul. Aside from political pragmatism, I don't see how someone could be opposed on religions grounds to abortion within a few days of conception and also have no problem with the destruction of fertilized eggs as part of IVF procedures.

[IvanV]

I found it astonishing that pro-children conservatives would want to ban IVF. But it seems that there is a minority conservative grouping that wants to restrict women's freedoms to the extent that they would ban IVF, and much more beyond. And there has been an understanding among democrats that they might go after IVF next. I found this MSNBC item interesting (12 mins) for its analysis of all the potential ramifications, including this point.

I don't find it astonishing. Banning IVF follows inevitably from their belief that at any stage of development a foetus has a soul. Aside from political pragmatism, I don't see how someone could be opposed on religions grounds to abortion within a few days of conception and also have no problem with the destruction of fertilized eggs as part of IVF procedures.

Whilst many of the strongly religious are conservatives, the reverse is less true. Many conservatives, like Trump, are only religious to the extent it is convenient.

I don't expect consistent thinking from the religious. And there's principle and practice. In principle, the Roman Catholic Church is dogmatically opposed to IVF. But in practice they don't make much fuss about it these days. It seems to be something they have come to understand will happen, and isn't a big issue for them, so they don't make much fuss about it. There's a number of these things where they seem to realise that their mediaeval morality can't prevail. For example, they are dogmatically opposed to divorce and kind of don't recognise remarriage (though the influential can get "annulments"). But in practice seem to understand that a system of civil divorce and remarriage will exist, will be used by catholics, and they don't make much fuss about it any more, recognising it as a reality of modern life.

[Woodchopper]

I found it astonishing that pro-children conservatives would want to ban IVF. But it seems that there is a minority conservative grouping that wants to restrict women's freedoms to the extent that they would ban IVF, and much more beyond. And there has been an understanding among democrats that they might go after IVF next. I found this MSNBC item interesting (12 mins) for its analysis of all the potential ramifications, including this point.

I don't find it astonishing. Banning IVF follows inevitably from their belief that at any stage of development a foetus has a soul. Aside from political pragmatism, I don't see how someone could be opposed on religions grounds to abortion within a few days of conception and also have no problem with the destruction of fertilized eggs as part of IVF procedures.

Whilst many of the strongly religious are conservatives, the reverse is less true. Many conservatives, like Trump, are only religious to the extent it is convenient.

I don't expect consistent thinking from the religious. And there's principle and practice. In principle, the Roman Catholic Church is dogmatically opposed to IVF. But in practice they don't make much fuss about it these days. It seems to be something they have come to understand will happen, and isn't a big issue for them, so they don't make much fuss about it. There's a number of these things where they seem to realise that their mediaeval morality can't prevail. For example, they are dogmatically opposed to divorce and kind of don't recognise remarriage (though the influential can get "annulments"). But in practice seem to understand that a system of civil divorce and remarriage will exist, will be used by catholics, and they don't make much fuss about it any more, recognising it as a reality of modern life.

Of course there are some chancers like Trump. But there is a high correlation between Republicans and people who profess an absolute certainty in the existence of god (as far as I remember its about 75%, with the rest of Republicans mostly certain). Republicanism is driven by organized religion. The secular traditional middle of the road people have pretty much been driven away. Though they may still vote if the Democrats can't offer an attractive alternative.

Yes, of course the catholic church has a long history of making accommodations. But Catholics in the US aren't driving the legal changes concerning reproduction. Catholics are more likely to vote Democrat and live in the 'blue' northern states. The South is where the law is being changed and it is predominantly protestant (with exceptions in southern Texas, southern Florida and Southern Louisiana).

[monkey]

You can get IVF in Alabama again.

Still got a stupid abortion law, but I know a few people who are happier today than they were yesterday.

[IvanV]

Alabama state politicians, Rep and Dem, are trying to rush through legislation to put a fix in for this.

Alabama state politicians where also told this would happen before passing the abortion law.

Rush-through achieved. Though like many rush-throughs it's a patch-up, not something that resolves the deeper problem of granting personhood to embryos.

The republican voter base might be predominantly religious. But I'm guessing that only a minority of them are so extremely religious that they would avoid IVF. And their representatives seem to have followed that. The fact that it is logically irreconcilable with the personhood point doesn't seem to trouble them.

What next?

[monkey]

The republican voter base might be predominantly religious. But I'm guessing that only a minority of them are so extremely religious that they would avoid IVF. And their representatives seem to have followed that. The fact that it is logically irreconcilable with the personhood point doesn't seem to trouble them.

Think I read somewhere that 80+% of evangelicals support access to IVF, but I might be misremembering. If I have a bit of time I'll do a google.

Think it's generally justified that it doesn't count until the embryo gets put in a womb. But I wouldn't expect too much logical consistency.

[monkey]

The republican voter base might be predominantly religious. But I'm guessing that only a minority of them are so extremely religious that they would avoid IVF. And their representatives seem to have followed that. The fact that it is logically irreconcilable with the personhood point doesn't seem to trouble them.

Think I read somewhere that 80+% of evangelicals support access to IVF, but I might be misremembering. If I have a bit of time I'll do a google.

Think it's generally justified that it doesn't count until the embryo gets put in a womb. But I wouldn't expect too much logical consistency.

Found this article that mentions it, and provides a source. It's 83% of evengelicals, compared to 86% in general, and 78% of pro lifers - clicky. Pretty sure that's not where I read it first.

The relevant paragraph is

Kellyanne Conway, the former senior counselor and campaign manager for President Donald Trump, went to Capitol Hill in December to share the result of a poll her firm KA Consulting conducted that found overwhelming support for IVF — including among people who identify as pro-life and Evangelical. The survey found that 86 percent of all respondents supported access to IVF, with 78 percent support among self-identified “pro-life advocates” and 83 percent among Evangelical Christians.

The source is survey done by ex Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway, which I did not know before. The article links to this pdf of the polling summary on her website - clicky. She's the one who came up with "Alternative facts" and invented a terrorist attack in Bowling Green. I'd treat it with caution.

[Martin_B]

The republican voter base might be predominantly religious. But I'm guessing that only a minority of them are so extremely religious that they would avoid IVF. And their representatives seem to have followed that. The fact that it is logically irreconcilable with the personhood point doesn't seem to trouble them.

Think I read somewhere that 80+% of evangelicals support access to IVF, but I might be misremembering. If I have a bit of time I'll do a google.

Think it's generally justified that it doesn't count until the embryo gets put in a womb. But I wouldn't expect too much logical consistency.

Found this article that mentions it, and provides a source. It's 83% of evengelicals, compared to 86% in general, and 78% of pro lifers - clicky. Pretty sure that's not where I read it first.

The relevant paragraph is

Kellyanne Conway, the former senior counselor and campaign manager for President Donald Trump, went to Capitol Hill in December to share the result of a poll her firm KA Consulting conducted that found overwhelming support for IVF — including among people who identify as pro-life and Evangelical. The survey found that 86 percent of all respondents supported access to IVF, with 78 percent support among self-identified “pro-life advocates” and 83 percent among Evangelical Christians.

The source is survey done by ex Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway, which I did not know before. The article links to this pdf of the polling summary on her website - clicky. She's the one who came up with "Alternative facts" and invented a terrorist attack in Bowling Green. I'd treat it with caution.

I've heard figures similar to those quoted elsewhere (although they may have gotten their figures from the same survey). But generally, Christians and other pro-lifers are fully behind IVF* and were shocked that their anti-abortion legislation could be taken to such an extreme. Interestingly, even those who do believe that life begins at conception (even if that is in a petri-dish) and so agreed with the sentiment that destroying (even accidentally) an embryo was akin to murder, don't seem to have the same hang-ups about the "waste" of IVF; maybe they just don't know enough to know that IVF treatment often creates multiple embryos at a time and the unused embryos are stored.

* The opponents are more against any form of science and believe that all scientists are trying to breed communist-anarchist-chimera-gay-chicken-super-soldiers hell bent of bring the Armageddon, or possibly just Mardi Gras.

[Woodchopper]

The Catholic Church has always opposed IVF.

There are differences among Protestant churches with liberal ones (eg Episcopalians) being ok with it and some conservative being opposed, with a lot in the middle that don’t take a position. This article seems to suggest that some churches have become more opposed in recent years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... n-beliefs/

However the last decent survey I can find is from 2013 and a lot has happened since then. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/20 ... h-and-ivf/