So what if Roe v. Wade is overturned?

[k9bfriender]

@UltraVires

Okay, well, your source is Slate which I hope we can agree is a far left leaning publication.

Sure, but they are not the only source. You note that the parts that I quoted also cited their sources, right?

@UltraVires

I can do that with many of my own state laws, those that don’t deal with abortion, and present a “horribles” situation that in practice never happens.

Really? You can find a state law that allows one to be prosecuted for something that happened outside of the state?

This really is a personhood bill. It gives the full rights of a person to the fetus. I doubt that prosecutors will be shy in prosecuting to the furthest extent of this law.

@UltraVires

I understand that your reliance on the good faith of these prosecutors is far less than mine, but it never happened Pre-Roe

Before Roe, abortion was simply illegal, and was entirely on the provider. Georgia’s bill criminalizes it for the woman as well. Before Roe, even though the procedure was illegal, the fetus was not considered to be a legal person.

This is a different situation.

@UltraVires

My state has ONE abortion clinic which is a two hour car ride from where I live.

And that is specifically because anti-abortionists have been passing bullshit laws specifically to target clinics. The utter cynicism with which they pass these laws is exactly what makes me hesitate to join you in assuming good faith on their part.

@UltraVires

So, I’m sure it would place an extra burden on some women, but that is the nature of a constitutional ruling.

I’m not sure that’s the reason for the constitution. But, sure…

@UltraVires

but many states put more of a burden on purchasing a gun

Not really. Find me a state that has only one gun store. Find me a state that is passing laws to make that gun store illegal.

Gun Sales in the United States by State - Top-Best.com

every single state in the nation has more gun dealers than McDonald’s restaurants.

@UltraVires

getting married which is an implied constitutional right

Eh?

@UltraVires

IOW, this new abortion scheme would still leave abortion within easy access of most other constitutional rights, even with a ruling holding that abortion is not such a right.

This is simply not true.

[Czarcasm]

@UltraVires

My state has ONE abortion clinic which is a two hour car ride from where I live.

Only one two-hour trip, with no requirement to few a film and/or receive a lecture then return another day?

[UltraVires]

@k9bfriender

Before Roe, abortion was simply illegal, and was entirely on the provider. Georgia’s bill criminalizes it for the woman as well. Before Roe, even though the procedure was illegal, the fetus was not considered to be a legal person.

This is a different situation.

No it doesn’t. That’s my point. Slate says that it does through a general aiding and abetting clause which no state has ever used to prosecute a woman for having an abortion out of state. None…Ever.

@Czarcasm

Only one two-hour trip, with no requirement to few a film and/or receive a lecture then return another day?

There is a 24 hour waiting period. No requirement to view pamphlets, films, or lectures. Such a law was upheld in Casey. Is that an “undue burden”? It wouldn’t be for my wife at all. Get a Quality Inn and go back the next day. A poor woman who had to borrow to get there in the first place? It certainly could/would be. But that is the inherent problem with the constitutional nature of the “undue burden” standard. Who or what is the standard compared against? My wife or the poor woman?

If it is the poor woman, then ANY regulation against abortion, including one that a trained professional perform it, adds extra costs that could be prohibitive.

[UltraVires]

@Czarcasm

Only one two-hour trip, with no requirement to few a film and/or receive a lecture then return another day?

In addition, why do we view my state as requiring a two hour trip, when an abortion is available by a forty-five minute trip? Do market forces not apply to abortions?

In the Whole Women’s Health case, the Court discounted the fact that many women in West Texas could get abortions in New Mexico. But why? Isn’t that present in every other service industry, including medical services? If there is a giant hospital right across the state border, then my state might realize that people use that hospital and not see a need to construct one on this side of the border. If there is a giant water park, to use an example, across the state line, then businesses won’t open one in this state because the need has been met.

But abortion, like Scalia and Thomas always say, has a special place in the heart of the Court. We don’t care about that. There must be easy in state access to abortion, circumstances be damned. And that is a result of the constitutionalization of that issue, and only that issue.

[Buck_Godot]

Why do you assume that everyone lives within 45 minutes of another state that allows abortion?

Challenge time:

You live in New Orleans LA. Roe V. Wade is canceled and any state that has a less than 50% approval for “abortion legal in most cases” makes it illegal. What is the shortest trip by bus that will take you to a place to get an abortion. The best I found so far is $114 to get on a Greyhound bus bright and early at 9:15 AM Sunday morning, travel 21.5 hours, to St Louis MO arriving at 6:15 Monday. Then you have the whole day to yourself to find a taxi to take you across to the Illinois suburbs to get the procedure, and another to take you back to the bus station, where $104 will get you a ticket on the 2:50 AM Tuesday morning bus, to take the 18.25 hour trip back to New Orleans to arrive at 9:05 PM Tuesday night, for your first good night sleep in 3 days, all ready to head to work bright eyed and bushy tailed on Wednesday.

[UltraVires]

Again, we are assuming that the Supreme Court has said that there is no such constitutional right to an abortion, so this burden is okay. But in any event, people can buy airline tickets. Sure, it creates a larger burden on the poor as does any regulation.

We could play this game all month. What if someone is too far away from a gun store or from the county courthouse to get a marriage license? Is it unconstitutional to only issue a marriage license at the county courthouse because the poor don’t own cars or have public transport to get them or must pay a fee? Before we can talk about how much of abortion prohibition is “bad” we must first agree on how easy the access should be in the first place.

And in doing so, I can point to my wife and you can point to the poorest woman in the United States and her distance from an abortion clinic, but where should it land?

[Paul_was_in_Saudi]

@k9bfriender

Now that you have been corrected on this, does that actually change your position, or was your position not actually based on evidence or information in the first place?

It was a very great pleasure to ignore most of your post. You need not thank me.

In any case, I am perfectly willing to change my mind when presented with evidence. I fear you did not understand, or did not reply, to what I claimed. I said something along the lines that abortion rights were becoming more recognized in the years before Roe. I seem to recall you said something about the number of states that recognized such rights.

You did not (if my memory serves) address the trend. Were abortion rights more recognized in 1972 or in 1962?

Roe was a fiat that told a lot of people to shut up. That made them angry. We may agree that it was a correct decision, but events since then surely indicate it was well ahead of the public.

[eschereal]

@UltraVires

Okay, well, your source is Slate which I hope we can agree is a far left leaning publication. They are not stating anything from Georgia officials, but are postulating on a worst case scenario …

The actual text of the Georgia bill is here. I suspect the clause that is interpreted to mean prosecution for out-of-state abortions may be

152 (d)(f) Health records shall be available to the district attorney of the judicial circuit in which the act of abortion occurs or the woman upon whom an abortion is performed resides.

There is some other weird shit in there, like,

194 "(c)(1) In every case of the homicide of a child, minor or sui juris, there shall be some party entitled to recover the full value of the life of the child, either as provided in this Code section or as provided in Chapter 4 of Title 51. For the homicide of an unborn child, the right to recover for the full value of the life of such child shall begin at the point at which a detectable human heartbeat

Maybe someone can explain to me this part about recovering the value of the life.

[UltraVires]

1. If a woman drives from Georgia to Maryland and gets an abortion, this law cannot compel Maryland to provide any health records. Maryland is a sovereign state and Georgia law does not affect Maryland.

2. This looks like it simply treats an unborn child, for tort purposes, like a newly born child. Yes, the “value of a life” is pretty silly, but is used for settlement purposes all of the time. If someone negligently kills my 17 year old daughter, how do you value her life? If someone kills that person’s 1 month old son, how do you value that? The same problems would apply to a 28 week fetus in utero but I don’t see how it is any more or less silly than the former.

[UltraVires]

I realize I didn’t answer your question. For tort purposes, the “value of a life” comes up in wrongful death actions. Say a 33 year old guy, a surgeon, is negligently killed. There are actuarial tables and people that do the math that say that he would have worked until he was 65, making a total of $X per year and providing his wife and family with $Y over the course of his working life, and therefore the tortfeasor should pay his survivors $Y for the lost income, and also he would have taken out the trash, cut the grass, and given her sex and social standing (not joking) and that has a value as well.

If push comes to shove, it is up to a jury to assign that monetary value, but it really comes down to what the parties settle upon.

[k9bfriender]

@Paul_was_in_Saudi

It was a very great pleasure to ignore most of your post.

Good to know. I will keep that in mind. It gives me information as to what sort of person I am discussing with, and what level of good faith to expect from you.

@Paul_was_in_Saudi

Were abortion rights more recognized in 1972 or in 1962?

Nationally, or at the state level?

Nationally, they were more recognized over time, that is in fact what the SCOTUS decision was.

At the state level they were not. Do you think that given enough time, Alabama would have come around on its own? If so, then present some sort of evidence for this. If not, then acknowledge that you are absolutely wrong on your assertion.

You claimed earlier that there would be yelling and screaming if states outlawed abortion, and that the electorate would demand it to be allowed.

This is in contrast to the actual facts, where states are banning abortion, and the electorate, those who voted for those who are passing these bills, is not only allowing, but demanding that they do so.

There is “yelling and screaming”, sure but it is just as ignored as you seem to enjoy ignoring the posts of others.

The way that it works is not that Roe v Wade is overturned, then states ban abortion. The way it works is that states ban abortion, and if that law is upheld, then that is what “overturns” Roe v Wade. And states are passing just these laws, in defiance of your assertions that they can’t or won’t.

@Paul_was_in_Saudi

Roe was a fiat that told a lot of people to shut up.

This is simply not true. No one was told to shut up. All anyone was told was that women had rights.

@Paul_was_in_Saudi

That made them angry.

People always get angry when their ability to dictate what individuals may do is decreased. That’s a very poor justification for allowing such a situation to continue.

@Paul_was_in_Saudi

We may agree that it was a correct decision, but events since then surely indicate it was well ahead of the public.

It was pretty settled law for nearly 50 years. The events of the last decade shouldn’t influence a decision half a century ago.

[k9bfriender]

@UltraVires

No it doesn’t. That’s my point. Slate says that it does through a general aiding and abetting clause which no state has ever used to prosecute a woman for having an abortion out of state. None…Ever.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

It’s been 50 years since a state could prosecute anyone for an abortion, in or out of state. I don’t know that your historical precedent is as solid as you would like.

There are laws about taking minors across state lines. If a fetus is considered a person, which this law seems to indicate, then that is a new situation that was not addressed pre-Wade.

@UltraVires

Who or what is the standard compared against? My wife or the poor woman?

And that’s exactly it. This is the usual case of laws that bind others, while not binding oneself. You and your wife can happily support an anti-abortion candidate, knowing that if you or one of your children is in a situation where an abortion is in your best interests, you will not face any difficulty in procuring one. You also know that those who are less fortunate, the ones that don’t get abortions for the right reasons, will be prevented.

@UltraVires

If it is the poor woman, then ANY regulation against abortion, including one that a trained professional perform it, adds extra costs that could be prohibitive.

This is a good point, and is a good argument as to why we should have a universal healthcare system, one that provides reproductive health. It is not a good argument for why we should make it harder for one to receive necessary medical treatment.

[k9bfriender]

@UltraVires

The same problems would apply to a 28 week fetus in utero but I don’t see how it is any more or less silly than the former.

It’s silly because it also applies to a 3 day old blastocyst.

[Paul_was_in_Saudi]

@k9bfriender

Do you think that given enough time, Alabama would have come around on its own?

Yes, yes I do. I think that over time a system of elections will produce decisions most people support. Compare to what happened. The Supreme Court ruled Alabama could not ban (but could regulate) abortion. As a result, right-wing extremists we set free to run amok. Even a reasonable legislator could vote for restrictions knowing that he could say to pro-life voters that he did not ban abortion. He could play both sides of the game safe in the knowledge that the Supreme Court was making the tough decisions.

That is sort of the thing. Give the legislators the power. Make them make policy. Punish them when they mess up. Do not let their offices become sinecures, protected by the simple expedient of not passing much of anything.

(This of course leads me to my tangent on the filibuster. Make the Senate pass stuff. Do not let them simply play to their most-rapid constituents.)

I believe that over time, elections work. Now, you asked me for proof of a “what-if,” of course there is no such proof.

Take away the training wheels and put the legislators, rather than unelected judges in charge.

I bet you would really hate some of the results. But I am also pretty sure such a return would also produce a lot of results you would like.

[naita]

@UltraVires

We could play this game all month. What if someone is too far away from a gun store or from the county courthouse to get a marriage license? Is it unconstitutional to only issue a marriage license at the county courthouse because the poor don’t own cars or have public transport to get them or must pay a fee?

That is the case with stupid games, they can go on forever. If gun licenses were only available in one location in a state, is there any doubt gun proponents would not consider it a de facto ban? Do you think they would be right?

@UltraVires

Before we can talk about how much of abortion prohibition is “bad” we must first agree on how easy the access should be in the first place.

That is … Some sort of weird meta-disingenuousness. If two people are discussing what regulation is reasonable for abortion providers and one person is actually for a total ban, then it’s likely that will not be a fruitful discussion and the person in favor of a ban will likely not put much effort into vetting their arguments for truthfulness and validity. And if they weren’t then “what level of access is reasonable” could be a point of contention. And it would be fruitless to discuss it if one side insisted that no level of restriction would be problematic. But that doesn’t mean the discussion can’t be had without agreeing.

[RitterSport]

I don’t understand how this could be simultaneously not that big of a deal if it were turned over to the states, and also one of the most important parts of the Republican platform to overturn Roe.

[JRDelirious]

@UltraVires

It is simply a “not in my backyard” scenario. Nothing more.

The problem, counselor, is that we don’t trust the people for whom this is a matter of human life to the point of making it their single issue, to stop at their back yard.

Heck, to borrow from an earlier post, it’s like happens with guns. Hardliners at one end want “assault” weapons and >10rd mags and private person-to-person transactions removed everywhere. Hardliners at the other end want unrestricted transfer and concealed and open carry everywhere (even in other people’s property). They are not happy with one thing in Chicago and another thing in Tucson because it still allows someone else to Do The Bad Thing.

Just imagine when it’s about the “babies”.

[UltraVires]

@k9bfriender

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

It’s been 50 years since a state could prosecute anyone for an abortion, in or out of state. I don’t know that your historical precedent is as solid as you would like.

There are laws about taking minors across state lines. If a fetus is considered a person, which this law seems to indicate, then that is a new situation that was not addressed pre-Wade.

So you concede that this is pure speculation on Slate’s part and should likely back off of the bold statement that women will be prosecuted for murder, even upon leaving the state for an abortion? There is simply no support for that statement.

@k9bfriender

And that’s exactly it. This is the usual case of laws that bind others, while not binding oneself. You and your wife can happily support an anti-abortion candidate, knowing that if you or one of your children is in a situation where an abortion is in your best interests, you will not face any difficulty in procuring one. You also know that those who are less fortunate, the ones that don’t get abortions for the right reasons, will be prevented.

That’s not it at all. There are hypocrites everywhere, but you don’t believe that there are many families and women who do not view abortion as an option?

You are also avoiding the question. Given the current state of the law under Casey that holds that states may indeed enact regulations against abortion that do not put an “undue burden” on women seeking an abortion, we have to explore what makes a burden “undue.” Who is the person we are using as an example?

If we use the most geographically isolated and poorest woman in the United States as that example, then every regulation is unconstitutional, not just for an abortion, but for everything. Pick any issue: guns, free speech, free exercise of religion, jury trials, right to an attorney, etc. Take a poor and geographically isolated woman who has been abused and needs to buy a gun for self protection. She must undergo an FBI background check and possibly wait up to 72 hours (would be extended to 30 days under recent proposals). If we are being fair and comparing apples to apples, wouldn’t you have to concede that if these abortion regulations fail, then the gun purchasing laws would have to fail as well?

@k9bfriender

This is a good point, and is a good argument as to why we should have a universal healthcare system, one that provides reproductive health. It is not a good argument for why we should make it harder for one to receive necessary medical treatment.

Nothing in Roe requires states who are opposed to abortion to pay for them. You are not arguing to keep Roe, you are arguing for a more expansive heretofore unheard of right to an abortion. Again, apples to apples, should the government buy guns, printing presses, or give free Bibles to poor people?

@k9bfriender

It’s silly because it also applies to a 3 day old blastocyst.

Not under this Georgia law it doesn’t. Personhood starts when a heartbeat is detected. I will concede that such personhood laws have problems lurking in the bushes–say for inheritance purposes. If I die in a car crash, how are we going to determine if my child in utero had developed a heart beat at that exact moment? Further, even the most ardent anti-abortion person I know would believe in an exception to save the mother’s life. In no other area of law would we simply choose one life over another in that fashion.

[UltraVires]

@naita

That is … Some sort of weird meta-disingenuousness. If two people are discussing what regulation is reasonable for abortion providers and one person is actually for a total ban, then it’s likely that will not be a fruitful discussion and the person in favor of a ban will likely not put much effort into vetting their arguments for truthfulness and validity. And if they weren’t then “what level of access is reasonable” could be a point of contention. And it would be fruitless to discuss it if one side insisted that no level of restriction would be problematic. But that doesn’t mean the discussion can’t be had without agreeing.

Likewise with turnabout. If you believe that all regulation is just a pretext for a ban, then you won’t agree with any of them. So, what then do we do with the Casey “undue burden” standard? Or should we dare say that Scalia is right and it means nothing more than a judge’s personal opinion on the propriety of abortion itself?

[Love_Rhombus]

A draft of the Supreme Court decision on abortion has been released.

It doesn’t look great. I realize this is a zombie, but it seemed an appropriate place to put it.