Corona Virus Update

That was RBG's view on it. I think it wrong. The ERA was specifically not ratified as people like Phyllis Schlafly pointed out: men and women are different. ERA (and incorporation into 14th thinking) would leave it to a group of elitists as to how those differences manifest themselves in our society. William Buckley himself supported ERA until a Feminist pointed out it would/should lead to 50/50 everything: good bad and ugly. So, a 1/2 female senate. And 50% combat deaths being female.
Again, anti-abortion appears to be a major loser. The Republicans will come around, and you'll have some kind of reasonable compromise.

 

What you just found to be acceptable is virtually EXACTLY what was in the ORIGINAL RvW decision.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/

The above can be SUMMARIZED as follows;

First trimester (weeks 1 - 13) no regulations beyond what apply to ALL medical facilities that dispense medications.

Second trimester (weeks 14 - 26) no regulations beyond what apply to ALL medical facilities that provide OUTPATIENT surgeries.

Third trimester (weeks 27-39) regulations restricting abortions to ONLY in the instances where the fetus is dead/dying/fatal nonsurvivable medical condition and/or the HEALTH/LIFE of the woman concerned is at RISK.

In essence we BOTH agree on what are ACCEPTABLE abortion REGULATIONS that are IN LINE with what we have had in place since 1973.

 

PUERILE denigration of PREGNANT WOMEN and spurious AD HOM content duly noted above.

Given the PABLUM riddled content above and your DISRESPECTFUL attitude towards ADULT WOMEN who are more than CAPABLE of making PERSONAL medical DECISIONS for themselves your entire position is based upon egregious FALLACIES.

 

"and/or the HEALTH/LIFE of the woman concerned is at RISK." Again, I'd insert the term of unusual risk for a pregnant woman. All pregnancies carry risk. Also that it be a physical, not mental, risk.

Personally, I mostly liked Roe for political reasons. As Constitutional law, it was garbage. Emanation from a penumbra my ass. Everyone knew that too, especially Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Legitimacy matters. Some day the court may find something you don't like. If they can just make sh1t up, how will you know to respect or not authentic jurisprudence?

 

Can you please define what you mean by "unusual" risk? Pregnancy can cause serious health risks that can result in lifelong disability or death. Those are already KNOWN pregnancy risks rather than "unusual" ones. However they are REAL and we have the MORTALITY statistics to support them.

As far as mental risk is concerned are you INCLUDING the risks of SELF HARM and SUICIDE which are Mental Health risks?

TBH I had a problem with that wording myself.

I prefer the Originalist argument based upon the Unenumerated Rights Clause in the BoR. Abortion was LEGAL prior to "quickening" when the nation was founded therefore it is just another unenumerated RIGHT.

Weed was probably legal too!

We both agree that Congress needs to pass a proper Abortion Rights bill along the lines we are in general agreement upon. Not going to happen in the next year but the election outcome will determine if it happens in 2025.

 

As you write, there are already known, real physical risks associated with pregnancy, always. Therefore, accepting that language, any pregnant woman would have the right to abort up until the moment after delivery. Not sure if the "Born Alive Amendment" curbs that at all. But examples of unusual? A pregnant woman is in an accident and in what may be a reversable vegetative state. But her body is so weakened that continued pregnancy or surgery to c section a viable baby is likely to kill her, you'd have unusual. I think this is a thing that actually happened in the US.

If we accept mental health reasons, again, there is no curb. A woman could simply make a claim however unsupportable and again, no curb on late term abortion. If she's claiming she's going to commit suicide? She needs to be hospitalized.

 

I appreciate you points but allow me to point out that they are EXCEPTIONS rather than the norm.

Passing legislation for the EXTREME is NEVER a good idea.

Let me put this to you ANOTHER way.

Any medical practitioner that performed 3rd trimester abortions for reasons that cannot be DIAGNOSED as being legitimate threats to the physical and/or mental health of the woman concerned would RISK their own LICENSE to practice medicine if they did any of the things you mention above.

Just CLAIMING to have a mental/physical condition is NOT enough to OBTAIN a 3rd Trimester abortion. There will need to be tests to confirm the condition.

In ADDITION the doctor has an OBLIGATION to the FETUS in the 3rd trimester. If the fetus is otherwise HEALTHY they will be exceptionally WARY of performing an abortion WITHOUT credible provable JUSTIFICATION. Far more LIKELY would be to do a Pre-term C-section and put the infant into an Natal ICU.

You CANNOT legislate EVERY single detail, it is IMPOSSIBLE.

TRUST the PROFESSIONALS, they have had at least a DECADE of TRAINING and who knows how much EXPERIENCE in dealing with pregnancies and abortions.

Let them sort out the nitty gritty details of each individual case as long as the always meet the 1st Do No Harm rule and the Health/Life of the woman concerned provisions.

NOTHING is ever just binary and when you are dealing with something like this the LESS regulation involved the better.

In Canada there are NO laws regulation abortion, NONE whatsoever.

There are TWO ways that CAN reduce abortion rates EFFECTIVELY and I would MUCH rather we put our EFFORTS into making these happen nationwide.

#1 is FREE contraception to anyone who needs it. After Obamacare passed abortions DROPPED significantly.

https://apnews.com/article/044e33d724ac4e408eaf8d1138e02f51

#2 is LARC's AKA Long Acting Reversible Contraceptives. In a study in CO these contraceptives were provided to HIGH RISK teens and there was a 41% REDUCTION in UNINTENDED pregnancies. Think about it, if we provided these LARC's to everyone who needed them we could REDUCE abortions to the point where they are so INFREQUENT as to no longer be a major ISSUE.

I know that the Xtofascist controlled GOP opposes BOTH options because they NEED abortion as a political CLUB to drive their supporters to the polls.

But from the POV of doing what is RIGHT for We the People I would NOT have a problem paying for these contraceptives. It is whole lot CHEAPER than having to pay TAXES to support MILLIONS of UNWANTED children.

 

Well, at least this is an argument you are making rather than a raw exercise of power. That's something.
I'll have to review more about how Europe handles this as I've just accepted it is more moderate and democratic than our own as others tell me without checking it myself.
And it is a truism that laws are meant to be broad. It is illegal (making illustration and NOT talking abortion here) to murder someone. Suppose I point out that 30% of left handed people have really good judgement about who needs killing? We don't try to carve out exceptions like that. We just leave a flat law.
But when money is involved, I'm loath to just trust the experts.
My own mom was told by a doctor to smoke cigarettes (I'm old and this was some time ago) for her health.
To this day we are drugging little boys with Ritalin and anti-depressants when both are over-proscribed.
Doctors are being sued by people that say with shockingly little review they were prescribed a path to gender transition.
Personally, I think our response to Covid was a power abusing hoax that made a lot of people rich and without which, Biden would not have been able to "fortify" the 2020 election. What happened now makes me question the Climate Crisis narrative.
Politically? Roe allowed RINOs to talk a good game about reform without actually having to do much. They could pass a law and a court would say, "sorry... we've been over this before." They could make promises they never had to even try to keep. Now, with Roe gone, I think they'll get a well deserved drubbing at the polls followed by a reform of the GOP at the State levels: democratic accommodations are coming.

 

You and I are on the same page WRT to the greed obsessed Healthcare Industrial Complex. They are like the a/hole uncle who is a complete PITA and drains your bank account faster than a convention of alcoholics but you still NEED him around to FIX stuff that BREAKS.

Did you spot the RUNNING THEME in all of your comments above?

What MOTIVATED your mom's doctor to PRESCRIBE cigarettes?
What MOTIVATES doctors to OVER-PROSCRIBE ritalin and depressants?

In a word, GREED.

You are correct that WHENEVER money is involved there is GOING to be a NEFARIOUS motivation.

That is why I was so interested to find out that Greed is what is going to RESOLVE the Climate Crisis for the rest of us.

We don't NEED laws requiring anyone to switch to solar or use more fuel efficient vehicles.

We will buy those things when it is in OUR own SELF INTEREST to do do. Greed is what is going to make those things so CHEAP that they become in our own self interest to buy them.

 

No need to denigrate adult children who do it all fine by themselves, really. They should be more responsible since 99% of pregnancies are avoidable, rather than running to government for solving a problem that they could have easily solved with some maturity to begin with. It's really a nanny state mentality.

 

Do you want to pay for someone's head surgery because they didn't want to wear a seatbelt? Are you going to bail out every adult child who can't take the simple measures to not suffer the consequences of their actions? Are you and Derido seriously going to deny that most pregnancies are avoidable?

What do you consider life? Love to hear it.

 

HILARIOUS!

Victim Blaming sans FACTS content duly noted.

As of 2022 there were about 61 MILLION married couples in the USA.

If we assume that they have SEXUAL intercourse once a week that comes to 3,172,000,000 OPPORTUNITIES for PREGNANCIES to occur.

There are LESS than ONE million ABORTIONS each year.

That means that the odds of UNWANTED pregnancy is 0.03% which result in an abortion.

Your DISPARAGEMENT is DEBUNKED by the MATH because 99.97% of all PREGNANCIES are ALREADY being AVOIDED.

We can ASSUME that MILLIONS of unmarried ADULTS have SIMILAR results but even if they were TWICE or THRICE more likely that is still NOWHERE near the THOUSAND times as bad as it would need to be just to REACH the 99% AVOIDABLE number.

Your MATH is BS as demonstrated above.

So is your BOGUS allegation about the government because the Law of the Land PROHIBITS the government from funding abortions.

PROJECTION of "nanny state mentality" duly noted.

 

I don't consider them victims. They engage in risky behavior without taking known safety precautions. They're just not that intelligent and want big brother to bail them out. Sad.

 

It's also not "my math"

Try reading this:

Contraceptive implant: more than 99% effective with perfect use. They work for 3 years, but can be taken out earlier. Fewer than 1 in 100 women using the implant will get pregnant in a year. Intrauterine system (IUS): more than 99% effective.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/how-effective-contraception/#:~:text=Long%2Dactive%20reversible%20contraceptive%20(LARC)%20methods&text=Contraceptive%20implant%3A%20more%20than%2099,%3A%20more%20than%2099%25%20effective.

How effective is contraception at preventing pregnancy? - NHS

 

Still waiting