SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person

[Jarlaxle]

You are so full of shit Meade that you don’t even know what you don’t know - even though the facts are readily available you are just so convinced of your superior intellect and knowledge of the world and the experiences of women that you can’t be bothered with facts. You are so painfully boring, among other negative qualities like the loathsome LGBTQIA bigotry.

You should find someplace to evangelize next that doesn’t have internet access.

That's not a constructive response to my expression of difficulty with the abortion issue. Surely you are not opposed to abortion in cases of incest and rape. Likewise, you are for abortion when the mother's life is in danger. I also believe those to be valid exceptions to any law restricting abortion rights. Do you propose that "I didn't want to do it" is also such an exception and how would that be determined in law? (I don't know - but there are lawyers here who are able to respond coherently).

I am also struggling with the experience of my wife and myself. One the one hand, there is a sense that abortion is a valid option when the child's life expectancy would be about zero (due to genetic factors) - and then the concern that this could be misused in some form of genetic selection (such as male vs female).

You may feel that my opinion is of no relevance. However, I am a voter and I understand my vote matters. So that must mean my opinion matters as that guides my vote.

That was unnecessary, BB. A mere cheap shot. Don't sink to that level (or rise, if that's the case).

Billy has no decency and never did.

[Econoline]

Similarly....

[Econoline]

"A woman is not a basket you place your buns in to keep them warm. Not a brood hen you can slip duck eggs under.

Not the purse holding the coins of your descendants till you spend them in wars.

Not a bank where your genes gather interest and interesting mutations in the tainted rain, any more than you are.

You plant corn and you harvest it to eat or sell.

You put the lamb in the pasture to fatten and haul it in to butcher for chops.

You slice the mountain in two for a road and gouge the high plains for coal and the waters run muddy for miles and years.

Fish die but you do not call them yours unless you wished to eat them.

Now you legislate mineral rights in a woman.

You lay claim to her pastures for grazing, fields for growing babies like iceberg lettuce.

You value children so dearly that none ever go hungry, none weep with no one to tend them when mothers work, none lack fresh fruit, none chew lead or cough to death and your orphanages are empty. Every noon the best restaurants serve poor children steaks.

At this moment at nine o'clock a partera is performing a table top abortion on an unwed mother in Texas who can’t get
Medicaid any longer. In five days she will die of tetanus and her little daughter will cry and be taken away.

Next door a husband and wife are sticking pins in the son they did not want. They will explain for hours how wicked he is, how he wants discipline.

We are all born of woman, in the rose of the womb we suckled our mother’s blood and every baby born has a right to love
like a seedling to sun.

Every baby born unloved, unwanted, is a bill that will come due in twenty years with interest, an anger that must find a target, a pain that will beget pain.

A decade downstream a child screams, a woman falls, a synagogue is torched, a firing squad is summoned, a button is pushed and the world burns.

I will choose what enters me, what becomes of my flesh.

Without choice, no politics, no ethics lives. I am not your cornfield, not your uranium mine, not your calf for fattening, not your cow for milking.

You may not use me as your factory.

Priests and legislators do not hold shares in my womb or my mind.

This is my body. If I give it to you I want it back.

My life is a non-negotiable demand."

~ Marge Piercy, 'Right to Life'

[liberty]

I hope you don't spend too much time thinking before posting the above type of comment. That would at least give you an excuse to say that you posted quickly and didn't give much thought to what you wrote.

Which of my suggestions is it that you don’t like? Or is it that you think you can’t do it; if that is the case, I think you might be wrong. Let me tell you a little secret you can win the struggle against red states. It may be that most people in red states are opposed to abortion and think killing babies is terrible, but that opposition is luke warm. They’re primarily interested in taking care of their own families and the future of their children, not some hypothetical unborn child. If the conditions were right, red-state voters would pressure their representatives to vote for a pro-abortion amendment. We would fight over something, but abortion is not one of them.

[Joe Guy]

I find it difficult to believe anyone would suggest, "this is your opportunity for a great liberal crusade or war...." while encouraging "liberals" to act like the insurrectionists did at the U.S. Capitol on 1/6/2021.

btw - can you give the name a liberal who posts here?

[Scooter]

[Scooter]

[Scooter]

[Joe Guy]

I have a question about this abortion ruling. If the states can decide whether or not to allow abortion, shouldn't it be determined by popular vote of the citizens of each state? Or is this just something governors can now declare to allow or outlaw?

[Crackpot]

It is something that would be/is legislated. (A lot of states are stuck with out of date laws on the books)In theory it could be voted on but that would probably not be the best option though. Nuance isn’t something that ballot measures handle well in my experience and medical procedures are almost always nuanced. Wouldn’t mind being wrong in this instance though.

[Joe Guy]

Thank you CP. I was thinking that if legalized abortion could be decided by the the popular vote in each state, I would be surprised if many states would outlaw it.

[BoSoxGal]

The states that had trigger laws in some cases are reverting back to century old laws that were on the books and were overriden in 1973 by Roe v Wade. So it’s legislation in some cases that reflects the will of the people before women had suffrage.

As to recent legislation and legislation soon to come in red states - this is all hinged on the long game the GOP’s been playing - gerrymandering districts to lean legislatures right, and restrict voting via closed primaries where typically only 5% of voters participate (yes this is disgusting in a country that allegedly lauds democracy) and so the candidates are skewing harder right to please that right wing nut job base that gets their ass out for primaries and thus is now ruling in states and nationwide with the tyranny of the extreme minority this whole plan has led to. The GOP let these religious nuts in starting in the 60s and they have taken the party hostage - it’s long been in the works but the full fruition has come with the religious nuts joining common cause with the MAGA nuts. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. There is serious talk in Congress of a federal abortion ban - I guarantee it’s already been drafted, sitting on a shelf waiting for Roe to be murdered by the Catholic conservative Roberts Court (that’s right John, this is your legacy!).

Women are utterly fucked if the GOP retakes Congress in November. Women need to resurrect their pink pussy hats and get to the polls in bigger numbers than ever before.

[Sue U]

Religious tenets should have no part in the public policy decisions concerning abortion. Just so everyone is clear on this, it is only certain sects of Christianity that drive the ideology behind abortion bans; Judaism and Islam have no such restrictions, and in fact actually require termination of a pregnancy under certain circumstances. (For Rav Danya's take -- whose position and views are authoritative, although representing a different sect from my own -- see My Religion Makes Me Pro-abortion, published earlier this month in The Atlantic.) Imposing the religious beliefs of certain Christians on the rest of us to restrict our rights (and the guidance of our own religions) is a violation of both the the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment and anathema to fundamental American values that pre-date the Revolution.

Even if you don't subscribe to the view that there is a constitutional right to privacy making certain personal, medical and family-life decisions absolutely off limits to state regulation from the get-go, the prosaic legal question is at what point, if any, is there a legitimate state interest in regulating abortion, and what justifies that regulation. There is no medical or public health health basis on which to base any restriction, as the procedure is safe and medically indicated for a variety of conditions that may be (as Crackpot rightly notes) too nuanced in individual circumstances for any one-size-fits-all rule to be practical.

Meade says he is "opposed in principle to abortion" because he "believe{s} it is the taking of the life of a member of the species homo sapiens." But is it? A fertilized egg is not "life," although it may have potential for life at some future date. Or it may never implant and be washed out in a menstrual cycle. Or it may result in an ectopic pregnancy. Or it may result in a miscarriage, or an otherwise nonviable pregnancy, or a viable pregnancy with a genetically damaged fetus that would not survive birth. Is this "life" in which the state has any legal interest?

Meade further posits that abortion may be justified in the case of rape, incest or where the mother's life will actually be lost by carrying the pregnancy to term. But in each of these cases isn't the fetus a "life"? Wouldn't that be "homicide" by his own definition? If "the taking of the life of a member of the species homo sapiens" is the line that must not be crossed, why the exceptions here? This is clearly not a policy based on any legitimate state interest in "protecting life." This is an irrational fuzzy feel-good accommodation to make abortion bans seem palatable.

Constitutional privacy and personal medical issues aside, there is a non-frivolous argument that at some point in the timeline of pregnancy the state may have a legitimate interest in regulating abortion once the fetus can be considered to be an actual life in being. For all its faults, the decision in Roe v. Wade struck that balance at independent viability outside the womb. Although that is later than some Christians may believe and earlier than than my own faith would have it, it is a line that at least has some rational secular basis justifying a state interest.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Meade says he is "opposed in principle to abortion" because he "believe{s} it is the taking of the life of a member of the species homo sapiens." But is it? A fertilized egg is not "life," although it may have potential for life at some future date. Or it may never implant and be washed out in a menstrual cycle. Or it may result in an ectopic pregnancy. Or it may result in a miscarriage, or an otherwise nonviable pregnancy, or a viable pregnancy with a genetically damaged fetus that would not survive birth. Is this "life" in which the state should has any legal interest?

Meade further posits that abortion may be justified in the case of rape, incest or where the mother's life will actually be lost by carrying the pregnancy to term. But in each of these cases isn't the fetus a "life"? Wouldn't that be "homicide" by his own definition? If "the taking of the life of a member of the species homo sapiens" is the line that must not be crossed, why the exceptions here? This is clearly not a policy based on any legitimate state interest in "protecting life." This is an irrational fuzzy feel-good accommodation to make abortion bans seem palatable.

Firstly, I stated that I am opposed in principle to homicide - but agrees that exceptions exist which mitigate and/or ameliorate an apparent homicide. In every case, there is a human judgement involved - that the taking of the life was justified on the grounds of a wider societal benefit than that of not taking the life.

When therefore I express a personal opposition to abortion (as the taking of a life), I also express the same reservation as I do with homicide. There are circumstances - human judgement being the arbiter - in which I believe abortion is exceptionally justified. Those grounds are or may be, rape, incest, actual danger of loss of life to the mother and (altho I'm not so comfortable with) fetal damage to disastrous effect.

I refuse to apply or to support a blanket law against either murder or abortion. To describe this personal struggle as "irrational fuzzy feel-good accommodation to make abortion bans seem palatable" is beneath contempt.

As to the opening argument, the imposition on a majority by any minority of its own favorite way of thinking and living is objectionable. It seems to me that the state interest is best served by allowing the people of the state to vote on proposals such as abortion (and the death penalty).

Being a Christian is (in terms of argumentation here) no different than being an atheist. Both have the equal right to argue, promote and bring about the state of affairs that they believe to be best/correct/whatever. Both want to "impose" that view on society. Christians have no monopoly whatsoever on being wrong, nor on driving their own view of the world into the legal framework.

[Big RR]

It seems to me that the state interest is best served by allowing the people of the state to vote on proposals such as abortion (and the death penalty).

Would you include any other things in this list? what about the right to (or not to) procreate? What about the right to travel and/or live where you choose? And, more close to home for you I would think, what about the right to practice (or not) what ever religion you choose. Is there nothing that you would not remove from the tyranny of the majority--specific rights delineated in the bill of rights? shouldn't the government right to proscribe something be limited? I think so, and am not so blithe to toss away the right to privacy. As Justice Brandeis wrote decades ago, "The makers of the Constitution conferred the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by all civilized men—the right to be let alone." Woudl you deny this is the majority chose to flex its muscle and exercise its will?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Would you include any other things in this list?

I think there is some value in a plebiscite (advisory), though perhaps not a referendum (binding).

"majority rules" is the case, at least in theory. It is mediated via the selection of one citizen to represent the views of the majority that voted him/her into office.

The system devised for the regulation of the states (republican democracy?) is perfectly OK with folks when the laws please them and yet is thoroughly reprehensible when the laws do not please them. It seems to be endemic

[Sue U]

Firstly, I stated that I am opposed in principle to homicide - but agrees that exceptions exist which mitigate and/or ameliorate an apparent homicide. In every case, there is a human judgement involved - that the taking of the life was justified on the grounds of a wider societal benefit than that of not taking the life.

So if a legal abortion is "justifiable homicide" (for the record, it's actually not homicide under any circumstances), what is the "wider societal benefit" that justifies it? Generally, "homicide" is justified by self-defense or defense of others under immediate threat of death. I could see that in the case where the mother's life is medically at risk, but pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or with a genetically damaged fetus, does not by itself put her life at risk.

I refuse to apply or to support a blanket law against either murder or abortion. To describe this personal struggle as "irrational fuzzy feel-good accommodation to make abortion bans seem palatable" is beneath contempt.

I don't know why your personal struggle should make my assessment "beneath contempt." I did not comment on any personal experience you may have had, and your feelings about the issue are decidedly not mine. From my point of view, I see these exceptions -- which are commonly (if grudgingly) accepted by the "pro-life" camp -- as window dressing for what is otherwise a ban in order to tamp down opposition.

As to the opening argument, the imposition on a majority by any minority of its own favorite way of thinking and living is objectionable. It seems to me that the state interest is best served by allowing the people of the state to vote on proposals such as abortion (and the death penalty).

Why should these be referendum issues? Isn't that what we have legislatures for? Would you trust your personal rights to a majority vote?

Being a Christian is (in terms of argumentation here) no different than being an atheist. Both have the equal right to argue, promote and bring about the state of affairs that they believe to be best/correct/whatever. Both want to "impose" that view on society. Christians have no monopoly whatsoever on being wrong, nor on driving their own view of the world into the legal framework.

While in general you are correct about argumentation, on the specifics you are wrong; your (or anyone else's) religious views may not be driven into the legal framework for American society without violating the constitutional protections afforded to those who believe differently. This is precisely why the U.S. constitution protects against majoritarian determination of fundamental civil rights. Legislation that promotes the religious beliefs of one sect over those of another -- or over non-belief -- is categorically outside constitutional permissibility. If your beliefs happen to line up with a secular purpose and policy, that's fine, but your religious convictions about when "life" begins and "homicide" of a fetus are not constitutionally sound bases for legislation.

[MajGenl.Meade]

etc etc

I did not state that abortion is "homicide" (the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another) given that it has been legal for most of my life. I did not state that a legal abortion is "justifiable homicide". The point is that any law requires human judgement to be involved in determining the facts and that perhaps abortion, like homicide, is entitled to exceptions based upon more than prima facie events. (ech horrible expression I just made there).

Perhaps my position would be more satisfactory to you if indeed I were to have the opinion that abortion is only justified when carrying to term would result in the death of the mother = state interest. However, I do think the state should be interested in mercy - do not victims of rape and incest deserve such mercy?

I acknowledge your modified statement that "I see these exceptions -- which are commonly (if grudgingly) accepted by the "pro-life" camp -- as window dressing for what is otherwise a ban in order to tamp down opposition." I mistakenly thought you were characterizing my statements as "window dressing" rather than a genuine effort to express doubt about the entire issue.

I don't support a referendum. (See reply to Big RR)

religious views may not be driven into the legal framework for American society without violating the constitutional protections afforded to those who believe differently.

If by "religious views" you refer to specific rites, rituals and practices, then I agree. But I see every person's desire to write the rules the way they want them as "imposing" their beliefs - or equally not imposing, merely causing to bring about. Goodness, if we voted against our own beliefs we'd be in a real mess!

I suppose that opposition to murder, theft, assault, etc (which in my view are "wrongs") are allowed under your rubric of "If your beliefs happen to line up with a secular purpose and policy, that's fine". Is that not another way of saying "if your beliefs happen to line up with mine" - because the Supreme Court has decided the Constitutional issue so opposition to abortion is not "violating protections of people who think differently".

What disturbs me about your argument is that it goes to the motive as to why I should or should not support or oppose legislation. Any legislation. I cannot oppose abortion, or seek to limit abortion, BECAUSE those are my "religious views"????? Whereas, if they are merely arbitrary likes and dislikes, I'm somehow free to engage in political action. Clearly, you are not stating that. But it's a fine line.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Could we propose a law that every man who creates a child WILL be involved in its life with financial and emotional support to the extent demanded by the mother? If a man denies a child but is later found to be the father (DNA) then all support $$$ are backdated to the birth date and prison beckons until the support is coughed up.

Not a particular desirable law on many front but we might see access to abortion becoming more attractive to some. I do not believe that, for example, Donald Trump and the sexual history of which he boasts, has not had an abortion or two in his past.

[Sue U]

I did not state that abortion is "homicide" (the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another) given that it has been legal for most of my life. I did not state that a legal abortion is "justifiable homicide". The point is that any law requires human judgement to be involved in determining the facts and that perhaps abortion, like homicide, is entitled to exceptions based upon more than prima facie events. (ech horrible expression I just made there).

But why does the state (or anyone else) need to "determine the facts" and "exercise judgment" over whether any individual's choice should be entitled to an exception? Why can't women simply make such decisions on their own, in consultation with their physicians? Why does a woman's medical choice necessitate involvement of the state? What is the social benefit objective that justifies an abortion ban? What countervailing considerations may outweigh it?

Perhaps my position would be more satisfactory to you if indeed I were to have the opinion that abortion is only justified when carrying to term would result in the death of the mother = state interest. However, I do think the state should be interested in mercy - do not victims of rape and incest deserve such mercy?

Yes, of course. My point was the logical inconsistency of the argument.

I acknowledge your modified statement that "I see these exceptions -- which are commonly (if grudgingly) accepted by the "pro-life" camp -- as window dressing for what is otherwise a ban in order to tamp down opposition." I mistakenly thought you were characterizing my statements as "window dressing" rather than a genuine effort to express doubt about the entire issue.

Well, that's alright then, innit?

religious views may not be driven into the legal framework for American society without violating the constitutional protections afforded to those who believe differently.

If by "religious views" you refer to specific rites, rituals and practices, then I agree. But I see every person's desire to write the rules the way they want them as "imposing" their beliefs - or equally not imposing, merely causing to bring about. Goodness, if we voted against our own beliefs we'd be in a real mess!

I suppose that opposition to murder, theft, assault, etc (which in my view are "wrongs") are allowed under your rubric of "If your beliefs happen to line up with a secular purpose and policy, that's fine". Is that not another way of saying "if your beliefs happen to line up with mine" - because the Supreme Court has decided the Constitutional issue so opposition to abortion is not "violating protections of people who think differently".

What disturbs me about your argument is that it goes to the motive as to why I should or should not support or oppose legislation. Any legislation. I cannot oppose abortion, or seek to limit abortion, BECAUSE those are my "religious views"????? Whereas, if they are merely arbitrary likes and dislikes, I'm somehow free to engage in political action. Clearly, you are not stating that. But it's a fine line.

The distinction is demonstrable social utility and secular purpose v. legislating morality for others. Murder, theft, assault, etc. are all objectively detrimental to the functions of an orderly democratic society, notwithstanding that they may also suffer from disapproval by religious doctrine. It is perfectly fine for you to follow your religious beliefs and to encourage others to adopt them; just don't legislate them for me.