Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #351  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:38 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,986
Here is the $64,000 Question: Under the law just created in Georgia, where can one go to get an abortion in Georgia? Same question for Alabama.
  #352  
Old 05-17-2019, 11:11 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
But who judges whether the doctor made a "reasonable medical judgment"?
His peers?
A panel of politicians that oppose abortions?
A panel of doctors appointed by politicians that oppose abortions?
AFAICT, the law doesn't set up a panel of politicians, or a panel of doctors appointed by politicians, to make any such judgement. I suppose, at some level, a prosecutor is going to make a determination. If the prosecutor has reason to believe that the abortion was performed absent a medical emergency, he can charge the doctor with violating the law. If a judge / grand jury doesn't throw out the charges, then a jury would be selected, they'd hear arguments from the prosecutor, presumably including some expert witnesses (probably doctors themselves), and the doctor's defense attorney, again presumably including some doctors as expert witnesses, and then they'd deliberate and reach a determination on the doctor's guilt. So, to answer your question, ultimately it could / would be a jury of his peers. IANAL, so I probably skipped a step or two in there, but I'm pretty sure I got the final answer right.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-17-2019 at 11:12 AM.
  #353  
Old 05-17-2019, 11:20 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So, to answer your question, ultimately it could / would be a jury of his peers. IANAL, so I probably skipped a step or two in there, but I'm pretty sure I got the final answer right.
Your answer started with "I suppose...", so excuse me if I don't find it satisfactory. Also, when the new law takes affect, will there still be places open that will actually perform abortions, or will the effect be the same as if all abortions are banned any way? If it happens to be that prosecutors will decide if an abortion is necessary or not, then I can reasonably make the case that this will be intimidation enough for the few abortion providers left to close shop.
  #354  
Old 05-17-2019, 11:33 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Your answer started with "I suppose...", so excuse me if I don't find it satisfactory. ...
*shrug* I imagine there are a great many things about this situation you don't find satisfactory. That's not really relevant to, well ... anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
... Also, when the new law takes affect, will there still be places open that will actually perform abortions, or will the effect be the same as if all abortions are banned any way? If it happens to be that prosecutors will decide if an abortion is necessary or not, then I can reasonably make the case that this will be intimidation enough for the few abortion providers left to close shop.
The Georgia law doesn't, AFAICT, order any abortion centers to close down. If it makes you feel better, "when the new law takes affect" is probably going to be years from now, after a SCOTUS hearing on the law, if ever.

I don't know what you mean by "I can reasonably make the case". Who would you be making the case to? The Georgia Legislature? That ship has sailed. SCOTUS? Posters here at the SDMB? I don't think it's a reasonable view of "intimidation". Lots of people in lots of industries have to abide by the laws governing their industry or they face criminal / civil penalties. That's not new, or unique to abortion doctors.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-17-2019 at 11:34 AM.
  #355  
Old 05-17-2019, 11:36 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
*shrug* I imagine there are a great many things about this situation you don't find satisfactory. That's not really relevant to, well ... anything.


The Georgia law doesn't, AFAICT, order any abortion centers to close down.
I never claimed it did, so maybe you should quote what I actually say from now on instead of responding to things that weren't even implied.
  #356  
Old 05-17-2019, 11:44 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
... maybe you should quote what I actually say from now on ...
I've been quoting you. Scroll up and you (and everyone else) can see that.

If you can't see how "when the new law takes affect, will there still be places open that will actually perform abortions" might be read as an attempt to imply that the law is forcing abortion centers to close, I don't know what else to tell you.
  #357  
Old 05-17-2019, 12:08 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,986
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution just published a story about a lot of the problems and ambiguities with this new law. Apparently it isn't so much who can't be charged with murder, but who will be, and all the reassurances in the world aren't worth shit when prosecutors that are elected by the populace try to curry favor with said populace.
  #358  
Old 05-17-2019, 06:16 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
AFAICT, the law doesn't set up a panel of politicians, or a panel of doctors appointed by politicians, to make any such judgement. I suppose, at some level, a prosecutor is going to make a determination. If the prosecutor has reason to believe that the abortion was performed absent a medical emergency, he can charge the doctor with violating the law. If a judge / grand jury doesn't throw out the charges, then a jury would be selected, they'd hear arguments from the prosecutor, presumably including some expert witnesses (probably doctors themselves), and the doctor's defense attorney, again presumably including some doctors as expert witnesses, and then they'd deliberate and reach a determination on the doctor's guilt. So, to answer your question, ultimately it could / would be a jury of his peers. IANAL, so I probably skipped a step or two in there, but I'm pretty sure I got the final answer right.
So in other words, the mere act of performing the action would subject the doctor to an expensive, stressful, and time-consuming legal suit.

Oh look, no doctor steps forward to perform the surgery, and the child dies.

The notion that abortion clinics would remain open is a joke. This would cut off supply. Of doctors, that is, not coat hangers.
  #359  
Old 05-18-2019, 09:05 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 54,110
I once talked to a rah-rah Catholic woman where the mother or a 9 year old child pregnant with twins and the doctor who performed the abortion on this 9 year old child pregnant with twins were excommunicated from the Catholic church (but not the stepfather who got this nine year old child pregnant with twins.) When I said "She would have died if she carried the pregnancy to term, the rah-rah shot back "You don't know that."

So how does one determine if an abortion saves the mother's life?
  #360  
Old 05-18-2019, 09:23 AM
DummyGladHands is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,073
In the early 70's, when there were a lot of stupid abortion laws, a woman was encourage to say and sign a paper to the effect that she would be a danger to herself and her unborn child if she did not have an abortion. Thus, tacitly threatening suicide.

I know this first hand as I signed that paper.
  #361  
Old 05-18-2019, 09:50 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution just published a story about a lot of the problems and ambiguities with this new law. Apparently it isn't so much who can't be charged with murder, but who will be, and all the reassurances in the world aren't worth shit when prosecutors that are elected by the populace try to curry favor with said populace.
Most of the more serious criticisms of the unintended consequences of this law have been explained and dealt with in this thread, but your criticism is more of a general one. With every single law passed by any legislative body, a lawyer can sit down and pull together a possible absurd consequence of it.

With any criminal law, a creative and overzealous prosecutor can use aiding and abetting, conspiracy, and other common law doctrines to bring improper prosecutions. The problem is not this law, but the nearly unfettered discretion of prosecutors in this country and the willingness of the legal system to largely "let the jury decide."

Case in point: In my state a guy has a domestic violence protection order against him which specifies that he is not to be at his marital home. He goes to the home when his wife is at work, unlocks the door with his key, walks in and gets his clothes and takes his Ipad from the downstairs man cave.

He has violated the DVP, a minor misdemeanor under state law. But the prosecutor who wants to hang him charges him with burglary, being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, and grand larceny, all of which are serious felonies and carry significant prison time.

Burglary because even though it is his house, the law says it was not his house at the time of the DVP, and larceny because the property was not his to have (even though it was unquestionably personal to him) during the DVP. His guns were in the gun cabinet in the house and he constructively possessed them when he was in the house.

Had he shown up at her workplace and called her every vile name in the book: minor misdemeanor. Because he attempted to collect some items in a non-violent way: three major felonies.

I am with you on not applying creative interpretations of the criminal law, but this phenomenon is not the fault of this particular law.
  #362  
Old 05-18-2019, 09:57 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by DummyGladHands View Post
In the early 70's, when there were a lot of stupid abortion laws, a woman was encourage to say and sign a paper to the effect that she would be a danger to herself and her unborn child if she did not have an abortion. Thus, tacitly threatening suicide.

I know this first hand as I signed that paper.
And do you think the assholes behind these new draconian laws will accept a note like that as evidence enough? This is why I want to know what the new procedure for determining whether the procedure is medically necessary actually is.
  #363  
Old 05-18-2019, 10:58 AM
Jeep's Phoenix's Avatar
Jeep's Phoenix is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 5,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
When I said "She would have died if she carried the pregnancy to term, the rah-rah shot back "You don't know that."

So how does one determine if an abortion saves the mother's life?
I've found that deeply religious folks tend to throw reasoning out the window when it comes to medical issues -
Baby born without a brain? "The Lord can work miracles!"
Kid is brain dead after a swimming accident? "Keep praying...something is better than nothing!"
A cancer patient lives for a year instead of the two months predicted by the doctor? "Doctors don't know anything, it's all in The Father's hands!"

No surprise that the logistics of a full-term baby emerging from a nine-year-old don't occur to these people. One would hope that doctors would be the authority on who could survive what, but given the wording of Alabama's law, it's very likely that a doctor would be afraid to declare that a mother's life is in danger.
  #364  
Old 05-18-2019, 10:59 AM
poweradd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The Georgia law doesn't, AFAICT, order any abortion centers to close down.
Neither do laws that require abortion clinics to meet ambulatory surgical center requirements, or laws that require abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. But the result of those laws is that abortion clinics do close, and the people who pass those laws know that. In fact, it can be argued that that is actually the purpose of thos laws, despite claims that they are to protect women's health.
  #365  
Old 05-18-2019, 12:48 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
And do you think the assholes behind these new draconian laws will accept a note like that as evidence enough? This is why I want to know what the new procedure for determining whether the procedure is medically necessary actually is.
Related; where a rape exception still exists, I'm curious what happens if a woman walks into a police station and says "I just learned I am pregnant. I have no memory of having consenting sex in the last few months, but I have a vague recollection of going to a bar a while back. I may have been roofied and raped but I can't remember any details."

Do the police take her word for it? Do they try to prove she is lying by finding someone she may have had consenting sex with? Is this enough of a "police report" to clear her for an abortion? Does this encourage women to report that they were raped in such a way that the rape itself cannot actually be investigated or prosecuted? Will women shop around for an accommodating police detective who is willing to take their report at face value, give them whatever documentation the clinic requires, and then dump the report in the files never to be looked at again?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.

Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 05-18-2019 at 12:52 PM.
  #366  
Old 05-18-2019, 01:19 PM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 54,110
Haven't you heard? The anti-abortion people have come up with the term Consensual rape. Talk about your oxymoronics!
  #367  
Old 05-18-2019, 01:19 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,818
Since the rape exception has been eliminated in the latest bills or laws by the Republicans, it is really hard to not conclude that many leaders of the party still belong to the pro-rape one.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/personal-foul/
  #368  
Old 05-18-2019, 01:32 PM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by DummyGladHands View Post
In the early 70's, when there were a lot of stupid abortion laws, a woman was encourage to say and sign a paper to the effect that she would be a danger to herself and her unborn child if she did not have an abortion. Thus, tacitly threatening suicide.

I know this first hand as I signed that paper.
Thank you for sharing this. The Georgia law specifically rules out possible suicide as a threat to the mother's life. Does that make sense? No. You'd still end up with a dead woman and, ironically, a dead embryo/fetus, but by golly, they're going to keep women from using potential suicide as an out.
  #369  
Old 05-18-2019, 02:32 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,357
So anyway, getting down to brass tacks, who on SCOTUS other than Thomas and Gorsuch would vote to overturn Roe? Alito and Roberts all seem to be more prone to stare decisis and Kavanaugh is harder to predict - and even if he voted to overturn, that's still just 3 justices.
  #370  
Old 05-18-2019, 02:49 PM
Mike Mabes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
So anyway, getting down to brass tacks, who on SCOTUS other than Thomas and Gorsuch would vote to overturn Roe? Alito and Roberts all seem to be more prone to stare decisis and Kavanaugh is harder to predict - and even if he voted to overturn, that's still just 3 justices.
I saw a clip of Jeffrery Toobin on CNN saying Roe is gone and congratulating Santorum on winning this issue. What a maroon. Roe is far from dead, I just don't see Roberts upholding this, if it even gets to the Court. Is it possible this could be a good thing, if it gets to the Court and is struck down, would that further strenghen Roe?

In any case, Sweet Home Alabama is now banned from my playlists, as much as I love Skynyrd

Last edited by Mike Mabes; 05-18-2019 at 02:51 PM.
  #371  
Old 05-18-2019, 02:58 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Mabes View Post
I saw a clip of Jeffrery Toobin on CNN saying Roe is gone and congratulating Santorum on winning this issue. What a maroon.
It should not be surprising that Santorum was in the list of the rape party followers or the ones that tolerate it.

From the Snopes link:
Quote:
Rape victims should make the best of a bad situation.”

On 20 January 2012, Rick Santorum, a former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania who was then campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination, appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight program and was asked by that show’s host about his stance on abortion and whether he believed abortion was wrong even in cases of incest and rape. Santorum responded by saying that although a pregnancy resulting from a rape might be “horrible,” it was nonetheless a “gift of human life” and that “we have to make the best out of a bad situation”:
  #372  
Old 05-18-2019, 03:51 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,357
There is much talk of how women would get illegal back-alley abortions if abortion were banned, but is it worth the risk? Assuming that it is not a situation where the pregnancy itself would cause greater physical harm than the abortion, the back-alley abortion carries the risk of infection, perforation, and a variety of other dangers - along with the legal issues. There are strong social incentives for abortion in some instances (such as a pregnant teenager in a community that strongly frowns upon that sort of thing), but overall the risk seems to outweigh the benefit.
  #373  
Old 05-18-2019, 04:10 PM
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
There is much talk of how women would get illegal back-alley abortions if abortion were banned, but is it worth the risk?
Quite a lot of women seem to have thought so.

https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2003/...st-be-prologue (re the USA)

Quote:
Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.

One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/ (2009)

Quote:
Every year, worldwide, about 42 million women with unintended pregnancies choose abortion, and nearly half of these procedures, 20 million, are unsafe. Some 68,000 women die of unsafe abortion annually, making it one of the leading causes of maternal mortality (13%). Of the women who survive unsafe abortion, 5 million will suffer long-term health complications.
I think a lot of people seriously underestimate the degree of desperation that an unwanted pregnancy can cause.

Last edited by thorny locust; 05-18-2019 at 04:12 PM.
  #374  
Old 05-18-2019, 04:16 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
There is much talk of how women would get illegal back-alley abortions if abortion were banned, but is it worth the risk? Assuming that it is not a situation where the pregnancy itself would cause greater physical harm than the abortion, the back-alley abortion carries the risk of infection, perforation, and a variety of other dangers - along with the legal issues. There are strong social incentives for abortion in some instances (such as a pregnant teenager in a community that strongly frowns upon that sort of thing), but overall the risk seems to outweigh the benefit.
This isn't a hypothetical. Abortions have been banned in the past, and women got back alley abortions.
  #375  
Old 05-18-2019, 04:33 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,157
If we want to see what happens to women when abortion is banned, we can look at the many countries that ban abortions. In my understanding, women who miscarry in these countries can be imprisoned. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-47263743

"The Central American country bans abortion in all circumstances, and dozens of women have been imprisoned for the deaths of their foetuses in cases where they said they had suffered miscarriages or stillbirths."
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #376  
Old 05-18-2019, 05:03 PM
Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,155
The Dem governor in LA plans to sign a 6 week abortion ban bill. He has always been pro life.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/18/polit...ill/index.html
  #377  
Old 05-18-2019, 05:23 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,986
If life is official at conception, then can a life insurance policy be taken out on said fertilized egg?
  #378  
Old 05-18-2019, 06:08 PM
you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 12,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
This isn't a hypothetical. Abortions have been banned in the past, and women got back alley abortions.
The 21st century version of a back alley abortion is ordering drugs online—possibly from sketchy suppliers, often outside the window for when medical abortions can safely be performed—and taking them in secret. I don’t know what happens when you take misoprostol after the first trimester...I guess we’re gonna find out.
  #379  
Old 05-18-2019, 06:44 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
I once talked to a rah-rah Catholic woman where the mother or a 9 year old child pregnant with twins and the doctor who performed the abortion on this 9 year old child pregnant with twins were excommunicated from the Catholic church (but not the stepfather who got this nine year old child pregnant with twins.)
They were not excommunicated. They excommunicated themselves by procuring an abortion. It's automatic.

Rape is a grave, mortal sin, but not in the same category.
  #380  
Old 05-18-2019, 06:47 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
They were not excommunicated. They excommunicated themselves by procuring an abortion. It's automatic.

Rape is a grave, mortal sin, but not in the same category.
Ahh, somehow that makes it okay to excommunicate a 9 year old rape victim, but nor her rapist.
  #381  
Old 05-18-2019, 06:51 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Ahh, somehow that makes it okay to excommunicate a 9 year old rape victim, but nor her rapist.
There's a limited number of offenses that qualify as Latae sententiae.

Abortion is one them, rape is not.
  #382  
Old 05-18-2019, 07:00 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
There's a limited number of offenses that qualify as Latae sententiae.

Abortion is one them, rape is not.
Apparently you think this is some sort of justification for excommunicating a nine-year old rape victim but not her rapist. Do you seriously think this would matter for the rest of us who think there is no possible justification for treating a 9 year old rape victim so monstrously?

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-18-2019 at 07:00 PM.
  #383  
Old 05-18-2019, 07:19 PM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Apparently you think this is some sort of justification for excommunicating a nine-year old rape victim but not her rapist. Do you seriously think this would matter for the rest of us who think there is no possible justification for treating a 9 year old rape victim so monstrously?
It doesn't need justification. It's Canon Law.
  #384  
Old 05-18-2019, 08:34 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 60,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
It doesn't need justification. It's Canon Law.
Do you, personally, think that this is all right-that this nine-year-old child is punished by her church more severely than her rapist?
  #385  
Old 05-18-2019, 09:22 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
It doesn't need justification. It's Canon Law.
Maybe you're fine with treating little girls abominably due to "Canon law", but you can't possibly expect everyone else to mindlessly submit to monstrous teachings just because it supposedly comes from a higher power.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #386  
Old 05-18-2019, 10:02 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Related; where a rape exception still exists, I'm curious what happens if a woman walks into a police station and says "I just learned I am pregnant. I have no memory of having consenting sex in the last few months, but I have a vague recollection of going to a bar a while back. I may have been roofied and raped but I can't remember any details."

Do the police take her word for it? Do they try to prove she is lying by finding someone she may have had consenting sex with? Is this enough of a "police report" to clear her for an abortion? Does this encourage women to report that they were raped in such a way that the rape itself cannot actually be investigated or prosecuted? Will women shop around for an accommodating police detective who is willing to take their report at face value, give them whatever documentation the clinic requires, and then dump the report in the files never to be looked at again?

Yeah, rape and incest exemptions, although politically very popular, don't make any rational sense to me. If abortion is the murder of a child, it's still murder if the child was created by one of those acts.

ETA: And the effect would likely be to increase the number of false allegations of rape.
__________________
Some people on TV are nice to look at.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 05-18-2019 at 10:04 PM.
  #387  
Old 05-18-2019, 10:34 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,018
Rape and incest exceptions make a mockery of pro-life arguments.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #388  
Old 05-19-2019, 05:47 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
So anyway, getting down to brass tacks, who on SCOTUS other than Thomas and Gorsuch would vote to overturn Roe? Alito and Roberts all seem to be more prone to stare decisis and Kavanaugh is harder to predict - and even if he voted to overturn, that's still just 3 justices.
You need 4 justices to agree to hear the case. If Trump is still in office for the next vacancy, he'll appoint Amy Barrett.

The Alabamians should hope it does not reach the Supreme Court, I think they'd lose. If Trump doesn't get another vacancy to fill, that would probably be the end of it for awhile. If Trump is still in office for the next vacancy, he'll appoint Amy Barrett, and if she replaces Ginsburg, which is the most likely scenario, then you will just have an assembly line going.

Along the way what can happen is that some judge lays out a roadmap for the anti-abortionists for what would get through. If Alabama got to the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh could do that. The anti-abortionists go write a new bill and wait for Barrett to get on.

The current math is very bad for pro-choice. Roberts is really the finger in the dike.
  #389  
Old 05-19-2019, 12:49 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,157
I just bought this book: https://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Post...language=en_US "Handbook for a Post-Roe America"; I recommend it for those with loved ones who may soon lose legal control over the whole of their bodies.
  #390  
Old 05-19-2019, 01:28 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Rape and incest exceptions make a mockery of pro-life arguments.
You know what I think makes a mockery of pro-life arguments? The fact that they’re even trying to litigate this. If pro-lifers really believed abortion was murder then we should expect to see massive, unprecedented civil unrest. We should be seeing constant rioting in the streets, fire bombings, abortionists being murdered, political assassinations, people loudly advocating the overthrow of the government, and all manner of other things. And not just isolated attacks once every few years, but sustained violence every single day.

Instead, pro-lifers seem content to fight this in the courts, even though they know that millions of people are fighting equally hard to keep abortion legal, even though they know they may never win.

It just doesn’t compute. Their actions simply aren’t consistent with people who think abortion is murder. They are, however, consistent with people who think fetuses, while important, are essentially “lesser” than the women who carry them. They’re lying to themselves and lying to us.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 05-19-2019 at 01:29 PM.
  #391  
Old 05-19-2019, 03:27 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
You know what I think makes a mockery of pro-life arguments? The fact that they’re even trying to litigate this. If pro-lifers really believed abortion was murder then we should expect to see massive, unprecedented civil unrest. We should be seeing constant rioting in the streets, fire bombings, abortionists being murdered, political assassinations, people loudly advocating the overthrow of the government, and all manner of other things. And not just isolated attacks once every few years, but sustained violence every single day.

Instead, pro-lifers seem content to fight this in the courts, even though they know that millions of people are fighting equally hard to keep abortion legal, even though they know they may never win.

It just doesn’t compute. Their actions simply aren’t consistent with people who think abortion is murder. They are, however, consistent with people who think fetuses, while important, are essentially “lesser” than the women who carry them. They’re lying to themselves and lying to us.
I've made this exact same point before -- the ones who spend their free time protesting abortion clinics (and worse) ... those are people living consistently with the proposition that "babies are being murdered en masse and it must be stopped", despicable as these protests are IMO. Not "pro-life" people who don't actually make any significant sacrifices. They're living consistently with "I think killing fetuses is wrong, but not wrong enough for me to actually make any significant changes to my life".

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-19-2019 at 03:28 PM.
  #392  
Old 05-19-2019, 05:08 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,281
So do you two believe those who call drone strikes murder are also being disingenuous?
  #393  
Old 05-19-2019, 05:20 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I've made this exact same point before -- the ones who spend their free time protesting abortion clinics (and worse) ... those are people living consistently with the proposition that "babies are being murdered en masse and it must be stopped", despicable as these protests are IMO. Not "pro-life" people who don't actually make any significant sacrifices. They're living consistently with "I think killing fetuses is wrong, but not wrong enough for me to actually make any significant changes to my life".
Bingo. If legal abortion, as the Alabama law says, is three times worse than the Holocaust, Stalin's and Mao's purges, the Cambodian killing fields, and the Rwandan genocide combined - well, nobody thought that the proper response to these atrocities was political action within the systems of each country.

So if abortion is really murder, and they're the ones who recognized that reality, then they're the ones who are most morally culpable for the continuing holocaust, because they recognized the evil, and fought it, how? By electing pro-life legislators, in a process that allowed the holocaust to continue for nearly half a century, and counting.

If millions of people are being killed on an ongoing basis, it would be important enough to halt that, that it would be worth fighting and dying for.

Occasionally, of course, someone realizes that this IS the only rational way to interpret the antiabortion movement's beliefs, and so they shoot an abortion doctor or firebomb a clinic, but even the antiabortion movement has, in the past, widely condemned those persons as extremists that don't reflect the movement's values.

So do they believe abortion is murder? Their words say yes, but their actions say no.
  #394  
Old 05-19-2019, 05:53 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,357
It's the difference between mind and heart. Intellectually, many pro-lifers may consider abortion to be murder, but that's like how PETA considers the killing of a chicken to be equivalent to murdering a human. It is fairly rare for PETA to get truly violent about chickens, pigs, sheep, cows, etc. being slaughtered for meat; PETA is mostly content with protest signs and Internet petitions.

There simply is not the gut feeling about a fetus in utero being equivalent to a 2-year old being euthanized. The visceral feeling is what gets people roused, and it's not there.
  #395  
Old 05-19-2019, 05:55 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,357
That being said, you could say the same about almost any cause (for instance, AGW people who believe that climate change is going to ruin the planet are being much too tame about their approach - they should be 1000x as forceful and vigorous about their cause then they are now) - but that takes us off-topic.
  #396  
Old 05-19-2019, 06:48 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
That being said, you could say the same about almost any cause (for instance, AGW people who believe that climate change is going to ruin the planet are being much too tame about their approach - they should be 1000x as forceful and vigorous about their cause then they are now) - but that takes us off-topic.
Not a good analogy there because a lot depends on not being prepared or expecting that leaders will listen to science instead of listening the fearmongers, who are in reality the ones that tell you that changing to deal with the issue will take us back to the stone age when that is not what proponents of finding solutions for the climate change issue are about.

Problem has been that ever since Newt Gingritch the powerful in America made the bet that empowering ignorants will prevent the governmental control of the polluting industry, and so far, they have made a good (but irresponsible) bet. Unfortunately, that bet comes with extreme side effects, such as also helping elect a lot of ignoramuses about women's rights and people that do not see a separation of church and state as important things.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 05-19-2019 at 06:51 PM.
  #397  
Old 05-19-2019, 07:12 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I've made this exact same point before -- the ones who spend their free time protesting abortion clinics (and worse) ... those are people living consistently with the proposition that "babies are being murdered en masse and it must be stopped", despicable as these protests are IMO. Not "pro-life" people who don't actually make any significant sacrifices. They're living consistently with "I think killing fetuses is wrong, but not wrong enough for me to actually make any significant changes to my life".
So which is it? Is the Alabama law too radical or not radical enough?
  #398  
Old 05-19-2019, 07:19 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Rape and incest exceptions make a mockery of pro-life arguments.
So, in Canada, are laws "all or nothing"? There cannot be a law that enacts a strong public policy that is tempered with a bit of compassion?

Your argument makes no sense. It goes sort of as follows: An abortion ban with no rape or incest exception is intolerable as we cannot expect a raped 11 year old to give birth, therefore there must, at minimum, be a rape or incest exception. But a law with a rape or incest exception is logically inconsistent, therefore:

We must permit all abortions, on demand, at any stage of pregnancy.

Surely you see the problems with your (side's or perhaps your) argument.
  #399  
Old 05-19-2019, 07:38 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So which is it? Is the Alabama law too radical or not radical enough?
Too radical even for several anti-abortionists.

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/186279...public-opinion
Quote:
In the wake of Alabama’s ban on abortion, many anti-abortion conservatives were striking surprising notes of caution, with some national Republican lawmakers voicing disapproval.

Not about the moral rightness of the bill, which bans almost all abortions in the state, with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest — but about the bill’s strategic usefulness in the long march to the Supreme Court and eventually, they hope, the end of Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and nationally legalized abortion itself.

To be clear, most Republicans oppose legal abortion, though the majority support limitations on abortion that would still permit the procedure in the case of rape or incest. So those expressing alarm about the Alabama bill are doing so because they think the legislation might ultimately prove counterproductive to their cause. Counterproductive because there’s a good chance the law won’t get before the Supreme Court, and because the unpopularity of the law nationally could put anti-abortion advocates on the defensive after, in their view, a decade of wins.
Quote:
While the majority of Republicans are against abortion, views on reproductive rights within the broader American electorate are far more complex. A 2018 Gallup poll found that just 29 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances, but that outweighs the 18 percent of Americans who believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. The vast majority of Americans think abortion should be legal, with restrictions of some kind (abortions being permitted only within the first three months of pregnancy, for example).
Quote:
And the editors of National Review agreed, writing that the lack of a rape or incest provision in the Alabama law might make “the ultimate extinction of abortion less likely” because of how deeply unpopular such legislation is nationally:

Quote:
We have a good sense of what happens when the national debate focuses on banning abortion in this rare circumstance that accounts for less than 1 percent of abortions. In 2011 voters in Mississippi defeated an abortion ban that lacked this exception by 16 percentage points. In Alabama, laws can’t be repealed via a voter-driven referendum, but pro-life lawmakers should care about how their actions affect the cause of protecting life throughout the country. Nationwide, more than 75 percent of Americans think abortion should be legal early in pregnancy when the pregnancy was the result of rape. Public opinion cannot be ignored in a democratic republic, and it would be a grave error to insist that no lives should be saved until all lives can be saved.
  #400  
Old 05-19-2019, 07:52 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So which is it? Is the Alabama law too radical or not radical enough?
Huh? Restricting women from making decisions about their own body by threat of force is abominable.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017