US Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade

[stray]

Originally Posted by BWTraveller

No, I just happen to know actual people, not just trolls on sites tailor-made for the most toxic of fools.

If you really want me to get into my MAGA hat wearing family and childhood friends... well that's probably part of the reason I absolutely hate childhood friends in anime. I guess it doesn't help I grew up nextdoor to you (OK) until middle school. Spoiler alert: they say the exact same shit on Facebook as I see on the Fox News comment section.

And fortunately, Alito is not in a position to actually create any kind of laws against contraceptives.

What do you call "precedent" if not law? Alito's decision may not have the power to ban contraception but it would no longer be protected either. That's why this decision as written is so fucked up.

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by stray

You literally posted a link to the text of the bill; did you not actually bother reading it? That bill only codifies Roe v. Wade (viability) and pushes back against state regulations. There's absolutely nothing in that bill that suggests moving away from viability as a standard.

Did you notice I linked the Senate version being voted on and my comment you are responding to was about the version that already passed in the House?

The House version contains language such as this.

(b) Purpose.—It is the purpose of this Act—

(1) to permit health care providers to provide abortion services without limitations or requirements that single out the provision of abortion services for restrictions that are more burdensome than those restrictions imposed on medically comparable procedures, do not significantly advance reproductive health or the safety of abortion services, and make abortion services more difficult to access

And the Senate version contains language such as this.

(b) Other Limitations or Requirements.—The statutory right specified in subsection (a) shall not be limited or otherwise infringed through, in addition to the limitations and requirements specified in paragraphs (1) through (11) of subsection (a), any limitation or requirement that—

(1) is the same as or similar to one or more of the limitations or requirements described in subsection (a); or

(2) both—

(A) expressly, effectively, implicitly, or as implemented singles out the provision of abortion services, health care providers who provide abortion services, or facilities in which abortion services are provided; and

(B) impedes access to abortion services.

Which as written makes laws that restrict abortion effectively impossible.

[stray]

Originally Posted by ramlaen

Which as written makes laws that restrict abortion effectively impossible.

None of what you quoted shifts the standard away from viability. Again, please stop spreading misinformation.

If you want to complain that the bill pushes back against restrictions from states that's a different topic, and one that's probably beyond the scope of this thread.

[Tenzen12]

It is literaly quote that say exactly that.

I get feelings that these days "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories" is just truth six months early. It's sad how many expressions cannot be taken seriously anymore due being arbitrarily thrown around for anything inconvenient. Well at least "misinformation" is taking over position of "conspiracy theories" so later can return what it used to be before becoming buzzword. That is something you laught at.

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by stray

None of what you quoted shifts the standard away from viability. Again, please stop spreading misinformation.

If you want to complain that the bill pushes back against restrictions from states that's a different topic, and one that's probably beyond the scope of this thread.

Perhaps you should quote where the bill makes viability the standard inatead of stamping your feet and saying the quoted sections are misinformation.

[stray]

Originally Posted by ramlaen

Perhaps you should quote where the bill makes viability the standard inatead of stamping your feet and saying the quoted sections are misinformation.

Can you cross the street by yourself or do you need me to hold your hand for that too?

SEC. 2. Definitions.

In this Act:

...

(7) VIABILITY.—The term “viability” means the point in a pregnancy at which, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, based on the particular facts of the case before the health care provider, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained fetal survival outside the uterus with or without artificial support.

And then...

SEC. 3. Permitted services.

(a) General Rule.—A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements:

(8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.

(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.

The "life and health" exception is standard in abortion law but the bill really does nothing but supersede state restrictions and codify viability into law.

Originally Posted by Tenzen12

It's sad how many expressions cannot be taken seriously anymore due being arbitrarily thrown around for anything inconvenient.

Save the shit talking for when you can actually prove your source. Until then I have to assume you're a liar. And like the mods said this is not a general abortion thread.

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by stray

Can you cross the street by yourself or do you need me to hold your hand for that too?

And then...The "life and health" exception is standard in abortion law but the bill really does nothing but supersede state restrictions and codify viability into law.Save the shit talking for when you can actually prove your source. Until then I have to assume you're a liar. And like the mods said this is not a general abortion thread.

The sections you quoted define 'viability' and explicity blocks any restriction 1) before then and 2) after then when the mothers health is at stake. The bill then goes on to say;

Originally Posted by ramlaen

in addition to the limitations and requirements specified in paragraphs (1) through (11) of subsection (a), any limitation or requirement that

Further defining what restrictions and limitations cannot be placed into disallowing them on post 'viability' abortions.

[stray]

Originally Posted by ramlaen

Further defining what restrictions and limitations cannot be placed into disallowing them on post 'viability' abortions.

Tell me you don't understand legalese without telling me you don't understand legalese.

The text of the bill is clear on viability, and its written to supplement the two precedents (Roe and Casey) already on the books. The paranoid fantasy that the single line you quoted is going to open the doors to late term abortions is... well its definitely off topic. If you've got nothing to add as far as the supreme court decision or Alito's draft opinion I'd suggest you go someplace else.

[Tenzen12]

Except you are arguing against people who drafted that bill in first place.

[Ithekro]

Sometimes you have to wonder if the bills actually say what the politicians are telling their constituents? Or if it is just smoke and mirrors to get people in a frenzy over something that actually won't change, and it really a distraction to keep the population from paying attention to things than might actually matter for the nation. (keeps the poor and middle class fighting over this rather than looking into just how rich the rich are and why. Also keeps the politicians in power as the parties use these issues to cover up that they aren't actually all that different, and just use hot button topics to keep the Red and Blue divide to their own advantages.)

[stray]

Originally Posted by Tenzen12

Except you are arguing against people who drafted that bill in first place.

Still can't find that deepfake, huh?

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Or if it is just smoke and mirrors to get people in a frenzy over something that actually won't change, and it really a distraction to keep the population from paying attention to things than might actually matter for the nation.

A lot of people (especially pro choice Republicans) didn't really think Roe and Casey were ever going to be overturned, that it was just a wedge to keep driving turnout.

[ramlaen]

It is done.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1392_6j37.pdf

[mangamuscle]

Will this make people get out of their sofas and go vote next November? Nah, but I bet they will have an excuse by then.

[Magin]

And boom goes the dynamite.

Between the overturning of Roe vs. Wade as well as the extra considerations Thomas recommended, I wonder what will happen to America now. It might still exist as a large political entity, but it's no longer (and probably hasn't been) the country i thought it was. Will it stay as United States, or will it become a land made of multiple countries because of different rules? Adding in that Texas, once more, is try to secede.

[Key Board]

America is no longer a spectrum. It's two groups of people with very different ways of thinking.

Thanks Clarence Thomas for spelling it out, though

//

[Guy Incognito]

Originally Posted by Magin

And boom goes the dynamite.

Between the overturning of Roe vs. Wade as well as the extra considerations Thomas recommended, I wonder what will happen to America now. It might still exist as a large political entity, but it's no longer (and probably hasn't been) the country i thought it was. Will it stay as United States, or will it become a land made of multiple countries because of different rules? Adding in that Texas, once more, is try to secede.

I hope, time to stop forcing people together who clearly don't like each other. and let the people choose what laws they want, that actually live their.

[The Green One]

I just hope any protests stay peaceful.

Regardless of which side you're on this is a deeply sensitive topic that people have very strong opinions about. Last thing we need is people getting hurt in protests over this.

[Magin]

Despite the idea that it's better to stay peaceful... well, I do hope a way is found for everything to stay peaceful while also giving rights to women. On the other hand, I expect we might get a Civil Rights Movement 2.0 kind of event.

[Akito Kinomoto]

I love how Viagra is trending right now

if only that was the worst dysfunction some people had

[Key Board]

Originally Posted by The Green One

I just hope any protests stay peaceful.

Regardless of which side you're on this is a deeply sensitive topic that people have very strong opinions about. Last thing we need is people getting hurt in protests over this.

Forcing women to give birth, especially like what's happening in Alabama, IS violence

//