Texas abortion law

[Woodchopper]

The shocking thing here is the loss of rights. A lot of Europe isn’t much better to start with.

I think Poland is the only major state where it isn’t available on demand for the first three months.

It’s banned in the Vatican, but only a handful of women live there. Possibly banned in a few other small states as well.

[dyqik]

The shocking thing here is the loss of rights. A lot of Europe isn’t much better to start with.

I think Poland is the only major state where it isn’t available on demand for the first three months.

It’s banned in the Vatican, but only a handful of women live there. Possibly banned in a few other small states as well.

Abortion technically isn't available on demand on the UK. It's only available under the Abortion Act under certain circumstances where there's:

* risk to the life of the pregnant woman;
* a necessity for abortion to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;
* risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family (up to a term limit of 24 weeks of gestation); or
* substantial risk that if the child were born, it would "suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped".

These exceptions (particularly the third) are interpreted very widely, but there's no absolute right to an abortion on demand in the UK.

Interpreting the laws in various states/countries has to be done very carefully, with an eye to the actual availability on the ground across the whole population.

Many of the earlier attempts at controlling abortion in the US have been based on restricting easy availability while technically not banning abortion on demand. Earlier Texas laws requiring hospital admitting privileges for abortion providers, for example.

[IvanV]

The shocking thing here is the loss of rights. A lot of Europe isn’t much better to start with.

I think Poland is the only major state where it isn’t available on demand for the first three months.

It’s banned in the Vatican, but only a handful of women live there. Possibly banned in a few other small states as well.

Everywhere in Europe, leaving aside some microstates, it is legal on request except the UK, Finland, Poland and Malta. In the UK and Finland it is limited to "Risk to woman's life, to her health, rape, fetal impairment, or socioeconomic factors." But as we know, it is unusual to be refused one if you want one in the UK (except Northern Ireland until just now). Even Republic of Ireland is now more liberal than the UK.

Indeed those are pretty much the only exceptions in all of Eurasia, north of a latitude representing the northern border of Syria.

Outside the US, the trend overall seems to be towards liberalisation, at least in the wealthier world. Recent notable liberalisations are in Argentina (shortly after an Argentinean became pope, one in the eye for you Vatican), Ireland, and Northern Ireland (imposed by those evil repressive UK rulers while Stormont was closed due to local arguments, despite that being about the only thing the argumentative parties could agree on).

The only recent tightening I am aware of, outside the USA, is in Honduras, where earlier this year they wrote their ban into the consitution so you would need a 75% majority to reverse it. CNN: Honduras constitutional abortion ban ratified

[Sciolus]

But as we know, it is unusual to be refused one if you want one in the UK (except Northern Ireland until just now).

FTFY.

[IvanV]

But as we know, it is unusual to be refused one if you want one in the UK (except Northern Ireland until just now).

FTFY.

Thanks for the link with detailed information. But it is just what I meant when I wrote those words.

[Woodchopper]

dyqik, IvanV

Thanks, we can say that in practice Poland is the only major state in Europe where abortion isn't available on demand up to 3 months. Though it may still be unlawful or heavily restricted in other small states or territories.

[Sciolus]

But as we know, it is unusual to be refused one if you want one in the UK (except Northern Ireland until just now).

FTFY.

Thanks for the link with detailed information. But it is just what I meant when I wrote those words.

I'm not sure how, given that you will still be refused an abortion in NI by (devolved) government policy.

[IvanV]

FTFY.

Thanks for the link with detailed information. But it is just what I meant when I wrote those words.

I'm not sure how, given that you will still be refused an abortion in NI by (devolved) government policy.

OK, I understand now. I only read as far as the fact that abortion on demand was legalised in May 2020, which confirmed my understanding. I didn't read further on, nor realise, the deliberate (in)actions of the executive in refusing to implement what is now the law in NI. Though the London govt is trying to force them to implement it no later than March 2022.

[Allo V Psycho]

Thanks for that link, Sciolus.

I note the last paragraph says:

Separately, a ”non-executive bill” has also been introduced in the Northern Ireland Assembly on abortion in instances of severe fetal impairment. The Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill (‘the SFIAA Bill’) was introduced on 16 February 2021 and, at the time of writing, had reached its Committee Stage. It seeks to remove the grounds for abortion in cases of severe fetal impairment by amending the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No.2) Regulations 2020

This leaves in 'fatal impairment'. However, I am not clear that the drafter of the amendment understands the nature of the biology involved. For instance in anencephaly, the fetus may remain 'alive' until birth, but will then inevitably die at birth. It is therefore not a fatal fetal impairment. But forcing the mother to carry an anencephalic fetus to term poses an increased risk to the mother: childbirth is an inherently more risky process than a termination. And having to carry a doomed pregnancy to birth, having to give birth, and seeing your child suffering from such severe abnormalities is, I believe, actively cruel. Or a fetus may be diagnosed with Tay-Sachs syndrome. The baby will be born alive, but will start to show distressing symptoms in the first six months, and will die, generally by about 5 years old. These are only two examples of many possible.

[IvanV]

Thanks for that link, Sciolus.

I note the last paragraph says:

Separately, a ”non-executive bill” has also been introduced in the Northern Ireland Assembly on abortion in instances of severe fetal impairment. The Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill (‘the SFIAA Bill’) was introduced on 16 February 2021 and, at the time of writing, had reached its Committee Stage. It seeks to remove the grounds for abortion in cases of severe fetal impairment by amending the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No.2) Regulations 2020

This leaves in 'fatal impairment'. However, I am not clear that the drafter of the amendment understands the nature of the biology involved. For instance in anencephaly, the fetus may remain 'alive' until birth, but will then inevitably die at birth. It is therefore not a fatal fetal impairment. But forcing the mother to carry an anencephalic fetus to term poses an increased risk to the mother: childbirth is an inherently more risky process than a termination. And having to carry a doomed pregnancy to birth, having to give birth, and seeing your child suffering from such severe abnormalities is, I believe, actively cruel. Or a fetus may be diagnosed with Tay-Sachs syndrome. The baby will be born alive, but will start to show distressing symptoms in the first six months, and will die, generally by about 5 years old. These are only two examples of many possible.

As far as I can see, these "grounds" only apply after 12 weeks. No "grounds" are needed for an abortion within 12 weeks. Though a hospital that has a facility and system to carry it out is required, that is currently (thanks Sciolus) is the main impediment. (Unless, presumably, and not much use to many, you go private.)

It seems to me that anti-abortionists often go out of their way to maximise the level of f.ckwittery in their laws, as we have recently seen in Texas. It seems to be a kind faith (or gullibility) test. If you'll support it despite that f.ckwittery, then you are indeed a true believer, and will go along with anything you are told to go along with on similar lines. Similar faith/gullibility tests exist in things like alternative medicine. The basic tenet of homeopathy, for example, seems to be deliberately designed to be about as unbelievable as possible. If you get someone to buy it nonetheless, you know you are dealing with a true (gullible) believer.

It is only recently that someone died in Ireland because doctors covered their tails by refusing to remove a dead fetus from that person's womb. Just in case it might, against all the extreme odds still be alive, in which case the doctors performing the procedure would have committed an serious imprisonable offence. Such was the f.ckwittery of the arrangements recently repealed in the Republic of Ireland.

[Allo V Psycho]

Thanks for that link, Sciolus.

I note the last paragraph says:

Separately, a ”non-executive bill” has also been introduced in the Northern Ireland Assembly on abortion in instances of severe fetal impairment. The Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill (‘the SFIAA Bill’) was introduced on 16 February 2021 and, at the time of writing, had reached its Committee Stage. It seeks to remove the grounds for abortion in cases of severe fetal impairment by amending the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No.2) Regulations 2020

This leaves in 'fatal impairment'. However, I am not clear that the drafter of the amendment understands the nature of the biology involved. For instance in anencephaly, the fetus may remain 'alive' until birth, but will then inevitably die at birth. It is therefore not a fatal fetal impairment. But forcing the mother to carry an anencephalic fetus to term poses an increased risk to the mother: childbirth is an inherently more risky process than a termination. And having to carry a doomed pregnancy to birth, having to give birth, and seeing your child suffering from such severe abnormalities is, I believe, actively cruel. Or a fetus may be diagnosed with Tay-Sachs syndrome. The baby will be born alive, but will start to show distressing symptoms in the first six months, and will die, generally by about 5 years old. These are only two examples of many possible.

As far as I can see, these "grounds" only apply after 12 weeks. No "grounds" are needed for an abortion within 12 weeks.

The booking scan isn't carried out till between 10 and 14 weeks in the UK. NI Direct suggests 8 to 12 weeks in Northern Ireland. But dates 'of pregnancy' are not reliable, since they date from the flow phase of the last menstrual cycle, and the menstrual cycle is variable. Nor does the dating scan pick up many abnormalities: that is done at the anomaly scan, at 18-20 weeks. Women in all these cases should receive counselling on their options and the implications of the condition, and should be given due time to come to their best decision with regard to her choices. This is not possible with a 12 week limit.

[IvanV]

So the London parliament went to the trouble of imposing an abortion liberalisation law on Northern Ireland, to solve the human rights issue that they refused to solve themselves, and the law isn't even fit for purpose? And the locals have the ability to get at it and make it even less fit for purpose? There was me thinking there was one thing the present government had done that was sensible for a change.

[bmforre]

Back to Texas:
Is the Sermon on the Mount respected in Texas or does it have too little shooting to count?

The call to "know them by their fruits" applied to care for mothers, babies and children to me would indicate that Socialist Vikings are closer to New Testament ethics than "Remember the Alamo Bang Bang" christian vigilantes.

[IvanV]

I think if you did try claiming to a well-read and articulate Southern Baptist that Scandinavian social democrats were being more biblically accurate than Southern Baptists, they'd very quickly run verbal rings around you. And it would achieve nothing but deepening of division.

What the evangelical churches have successfully done is focus religious correctness on a few Really Important things - preventing abortion and homosexuality - while de-emphasizing many other things. You can be forgiven most things, after all Christiniaty is a forgiving religion, some things are harder to forgive than others. In that, they aren't very different from most other religions, including the numerous versions of Christianity. The things that you choose as the Really Important act as the shibboleth of your particular tribe, and so tend to attract considerable loyalty by the people who feel they belong to that tribe. That is why they are so persistent despite generally looking completely bonkers to outsiders.

Translating the bible is often done in a way convenient for the particular dogmas of the people doing it. I like the book Misquoting Jesus (published in UK as Whose Word Is It) by Bart Ehrman on this topic - though focusing on the New Testament. A book I frequently return to.

The original Hebrew of the 10 commandments tends to be interpreted by people who originally wrote it to mean "though shalt not murder other Jews". After all, the Old Testament god was very keen on killing people who weren't Jews, and punished the Jews when they carried out insufficient of that important religious duy. This is one of the issues that comes up quite a bit in another even better book (by my estimation, although I lent them both to a friend and he read the Ehrman twice and couldn't read this one) The Bible Unearthed, by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. Its main subject is the consistency, or otherwise, between our archaeological knowledge of Palestine and what the "historical" parts of the Old Testament say. It draws attention to some very embarrassing ex post rewriting of history that appears to have been indulged in to cover up various facts inconvenient for the National Myth. For example, that Jerusalem was a minor provincial backwater until most of the rest of Palestine was destroyed and taken over by invaders, who luckily got distracted before they got around to finishing off the final 10%.

So killing humans in general was definitely allowed, and in many cases encouraged, according to the writers of the Old Testament. And Jews can be killed too. The Old Testament prescribes the death penalty for numerous so-called capital sins. I think perhaps you ceased to be considered a Jew if you behaved badly enough, such as striking your parents, or lying about your virginity.

Clearly this had to be reinterpreted for the purposes of Christianity, if they wanted to keep the Old Testament while rejecting Judaism. And the great diversity of Christian churches - who were once even more diverse if you read the history of the very early church, an entertaining topic the modern churches like to sweep very firmly under the carpet - is the natural consequence of the many different ways of reading this highly contradictory and vague book, containing numerous demonstrable factual errors.

[Al Capone Junior]

. Most of the deep red states seem to be a total f.cking lost cause at this point.

This. Is. True.

[dyqik]

Just to add to the discussion of race and religion, abortion is also illegal in most of Mexico (including the states bordering Texas), where almost everybody is Hispanic and Catholic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Mexico

Oppressing women seems to be one of the areas where the malign influence of religion is most clear.

The new law is sick and inhumane, but thoroughly unsurprising. Most of the deep red states seem to be a total f.cking lost cause at this point.

I've seen traveling to Mexico given as one of the reasonable options for getting an abortion after 6 weeks from Texas. The states across the border apparently have large enough exceptions to make it a viable option.

Maternal health, fetal deformities and rape are the only exceptions (see link):

All states' penal codes permit abortions in cases of rape, and all but Guanajuato, Guerrero, and Querétaro's permit it to save the mother's life. Fourteen out of thirty-one expand these cases to include severe fetal deformities, and the state of Yucatán includes economic factors when the mother has previously given birth to three or more children.[19] Nevertheless, according to Jo Tuckman of The Guardian, in practice, almost no state provides access to abortions in the cases listed. They also prosecute neither the doctors who offer safe illegal abortions nor the cheaper life-threatening backstreet practitioners.[20]

Mexicans from northern states generally have to travel to Mexico City or do it illegally.

The Mexican Supreme Court has just ruled today that criminal penalties for abortion are unconstitutional, which means they abortion is now effectively decriminalized across Mexico, even if not legal.

The Texas law is civil rather than criminal, so that's not ruled out in Mexico. But I suspect the Mexican Supreme Court isn't as corrupt as the US one.

[Al Capone Junior]

Beau gets it right again. The law gives a whole bunch of really judgmental ppl something to look down on, so they don't look up and see what's really going on. Oh, and poor ppl get the shaft extra, again. Doesn't affect rich ppl bc they have "power tickets". Sounds about right.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oADVHiFayGU

[Woodchopper]

A federal judge temporarily blocked on Wednesday a near-total ban on abortion in Texas, the toughest such law in the United States, following a challenge from President Joe Biden's administration after the U.S. Supreme Court let it proceed.

The action by U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman in Austin prevents the state from enforcing the Republican-backed law, which prohibits women from obtaining an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, while litigation over its legality continues.

The case is part of a fierce legal battle over abortion access in the United States, with numerous states pursuing restrictions.

"This Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right," Pitman said in the ruling.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-jud ... 021-10-07/