Breaking: Mississippi asks SCOTUS to overturn ROE

[Vic]

for those who dont know (and I'm guessing its a substantial portion of the country) Roe v Wade did not say women have a constitutional right to abortions.
it says women have a constitutional right to medical privacy which also includes abortions.
If somebody overturned it, they'd be effectively stating women do not have a constitutional right to medical privacy, and the opens a whole bucket of worms. Oh, and there were two other major supreme court rulings on the issue besides Roe v Wade. Landmark cases. I forget their names.

Having said all that, what we really need is for congress to pass a new amendment saying women definitely have a right to abortions or do not have a right to abortions. That will never happen, because theres just enough people on both sides to keep fighting that war forever. There are people who would kill their fellow Americans to prove that all human life is precious. And no, they do get the hypocrisy.

What Roe v Wade effectively said is that all persons in this country enjoy the same 14a rights to due process, including pregnant women.
One of the biggest misconceptions that I see people have about the Supreme Court is that they'll say it legalized something. Like, Obergefell v Hodges legalized same-sex marriage. Or Roe v Hodges legalized abortion. And yet that's not how it works. The Supreme Court can't legalize anything, only Congress can do that. What the Supreme Court can do is declare a law unenforceable, which is what it did in both those cases.

Now, with all that in mind, let's consider that what the honorable AG said in front of the Supremes was that a prior decision the court had made guaranteeing a specific Constitutional right to all persons, which that Constitutional amendment specifically states must be guaranteed to all persons, was "egregiously wrong."

So like I said earlier, political grandstanding.

 

[Moonbeam]

You give GOP women wayyyy too much credit, and we aren't just talking about the Evangelical cult rapture loons. I think they might lose a tiny bit of female GQP voters but not a lot.

Probably knock off some of those back alleys though.

 

[ondma]

Whereas a huge part of the GQP argues a person is at conception, pray tell, who from the other side is arguing a person becomes a person 3 months after they are born?

Sounds like yet another bullshit both sideser argument. As usual.

The vast vast majority of pro-choice folks want abortion to be legal up to around 3-4 months by choice, and then after in case of a health issue that arises which could be dangerous for the mother, for example. The vast majority of anti-choice folks want abortion to be either completely illegal, or illegal at a point like 5-6 weeks when most women are just realizing they might be pregnant at all, which is effectively, well, we know what that means effectively.

This is meant as a legitimate question, not trying to be argumentative. If the "pro abortion folks" want abortion to be legal up to 4 months (17 weeks), seems to me like this law doesnt change much. I mean the limit is 15 weeks right?

 

[tweaker2]

You give GOP women wayyyy too much credit, and we aren't just talking about the Evangelical cult rapture loons. I think they might lose a tiny bit of female GQP voters but not a lot.

I somewhat agree with you in the sense that many conservative women will tow the party line up front in the public eye, yet if they just so happen to have "mistakenly" and "inconveniently" become pregnant, especially while chasing after a promising career prospect they will, they WILL find a way to very very discretely terminate their pregnancies so that none would be the wiser. I'm sure this has happened numerous times among those "conservative females" who tout the family values hoax their party exploits in order to distinguish themselves from those "socialist godless heathen" they look down their noses at.

That and so much more is the reality the conservatives like to ignore among themselves so as to keep that false pretense of theirs intact.

 

[Meghan54]

Irrelevant that it passes or not these days, much as it always has been. White girls/women will always have access to an "abortion" in everything but name only, as long as she has health insurance.

This is the scenario and it plays out every day in the U.S., much like it always has......for white girls.

Girl gets pregnant and finds out. Has good health insurance. Finds out that if you go to doctor complaining of spotting, cramping, pain, etc., you get admitted and potentially get a D&C, which is the "proper" name for a type of abortion. Dilation and curettage. Safe abortion procedure. Done in hospital setting. Blacks need not apply as it's an offered procedure, not one that's patient requested, like setting a broken arm or the like.

 

[Meghan54]

This is meant as a legitimate question, not trying to be argumentative. If the "pro abortion folks" want abortion to be legal up to 4 months (17 weeks), seems to me like this law doesnt change much. I mean the limit is 15 weeks right?

Let me ask....why was 24 weeks chosen as the end point for allowing abortions? There is a human physiology reason why.

 

[dank69]

I think this can only turn out badly for conservatives. If RvW is overturned, progressives will rally like crazy at the midterms I would think over something this monumental. If RvW stands, all the people that voted for Trump specifically for this purpose will feal like it is impossible to overturn, which I think will depress conservative voter turnout.

They can rally all they want after the fact, but it will be equivalent to pissing in the wind. The time to rally was 2016. If it gets overturned, and that is a big if, then we deserve it. Americans deserve it for being so, so fucking stupid.

 

[BlueWeasel]

I don't follow how affording women their 14a protections could be "egregiously wrong," but the AG is certainly entitled to political grandstanding.

That's all this AG does. I've lost count to the number of meritless and stupid lawsuit filed by her office.

 

[MichaelMay]

I guess it all depends on when a fetus becomes a person. I don't know the answer to that, but I've read arguments that it happens at conception and all the way up to one year old. The two outer limits seem just a tad extreme to me.

A person would mean they are entitled to all rights and privileges of a person so at age 21?

 

[MichaelMay]

Let me ask....why was 24 weeks chosen as the end point for allowing abortions? There is a human physiology reason why.

Week 25 is when brain activity in the frontal cortex goes from random impulse (brain dead if you are born) to full neural activity. I'm assuming that's why.

 

[dank69]

Week 25 is when brain activity in the frontal cortex goes from random impulse (brain dead if you are born) to full neural activity. I'm assuming that's why.

I thought it had more to do with potential viability outside the womb?

 

[MichaelMay]

I thought it had more to do with potential viability outside the womb?

I'm not American but that was the discussion over here. If a born person is considered brain dead at that stage then how can a fetus be considered alive?

 

[Zorba]

This is meant as a legitimate question, not trying to be argumentative. If the "pro abortion folks" want abortion to be legal up to 4 months (17 weeks), seems to me like this law doesnt change much. I mean the limit is 15 weeks right?

15 weeks basically eliminates abortion for issues with the fetus.

 

[Zorba]

I thought it had more to do with potential viability outside the womb?

yeah, that is the standard in the US. The point that a baby has a reasonable potential to live.

This is also the cutoff point for when a pregnant lady can sail on a cruise ship, so if she deliveries on the ship there is no expectation of providing care for the baby. (Although this did happen a few years back, and the baby lived. Really weird, they told the parents that baby died during delivery, while they were providing it life support. IIRC it took them 6 hours to get close enough to San Juan for the Coast Guard to pick them up.

 

[HomerJS]

I'm hoping SCOTUS overturns it. The human outcry through the nation would sweep all Republicans out to sea for the next 50 years.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Yeah, a part of me really wants to just give evangelicals what they want on this one.

Like a dog that finally catches a car, the fallout from such an event would really be something to see.

Would it fuck up a lot of lives and leave a trail of human wreckage in it's wake? Yes. But like the starving children of Africa or the brutally oppressed Rohinga or anyone else, so long as they are out of sight they can stay out of mind. I don't cry myself to sleep for them, I can afford to spare a tear.

 

[Meghan54]

Week 25 is when brain activity in the frontal cortex goes from random impulse (brain dead if you are born) to full neural activity. I'm assuming that's why.

Wrong. Prior to ~24 weeks gestation, a fetus cannot produce surfactant in its lungs. Once the fetus is producing surfactant, it can then breathe on its own. Before that, even intubating and placing the fetus on a ventilator is useless its lungs will just continually be awash with fluid, preventing O2/CO2 exchange in the alveolar sacs.

It's almost a "there's no point" in resusitation prior to around 24 weeks if fetus born prematurely...although it's still tried....with complete futility. Ask me how I know....I might share a few things. Or maybe not....not exactly happy-happy-joy-joy memories.

 

[MichaelMay]

Wrong. Prior to ~24 weeks gestation, a fetus cannot produce surfactant in its lungs. Once the fetus is producing surfactant, it can then breathe on its own. Before that, even intubating and placing the fetus on a ventilator is useless its lungs will just continually be awash with fluid, preventing O2/CO2 exchange in the alveolar sacs.

It's almost a "there's no point" in resusitation prior to around 24 weeks if fetus born prematurely...although it's still tried....with complete futility. Ask me how I know....I might share a few things. Or maybe not....not exactly happy-happy-joy-joy memories.

I am not wrong, you are just using a different way to define life over there where you differ between what makes a born human and a fetus alive. If it's not alive, it cannot be killed.

I don't think your ideas on this are correct because it's 50/50 at that stage and 30/70 two weeks before that, who decides what chance of life is appropriate?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Please do so Court and let’s see what happens with next years State & Federal elections plus what the court looks like come 2024.
I am tired of the bickering over abortion that’s been going on for DECADES.
I am tired of the enormous political capital it has taken from Democrats who get next to zero reward for it.
Go for it make abortion illegal, shit make it illegal in every State. Make birth control illegal. Let’s see what the electorate says about that.

 

[nickqt]

I am not wrong, you are just using a different way to define life over there where you differ between what makes a born human and a fetus alive. If it's not alive, it cannot be killed.

I don't think your ideas on this are correct because it's 50/50 at that stage and 30/70 two weeks before that, who decides what chance of life is appropriate?

If you're German, your English is amazing, but perhaps you're getting lost in what they're talking about.

Whether a fetus is "alive", "brain alive", and "viable outside of a women's womb" are three different categories. Meghan is simply saying that prior to week 24 when a fetus is able to produce surfactant in its lungs, it will rarely survive outside of the mother's womb...regardless of whether the brain is functioning as a "brain" and not just a neural center or whatever. And clearly the fetus is made up of millions of alive cells days into it existing.

Some of the highest tier hospitals can keep a baby alive outside the womb around the 22-24 week period, but with most, it' just becomes a futile attempt to keep the baby alive since you can deliver the oxygen just fine into the lungs, but you can't get the O2 in and CO2 out if the alveoli are essentially stuck together.

 

[cytg111]

Its part of the construct they'll use to get rid of the electorate.
There will be no "swinging back of the pendulum".

Side note : If a post week 24 pregnant woman attempts suicide and fails, is she charged with attempted murder of the fetus? If she is not, that seems inconsistent.