News SC Draft Opinion: Roe v. Wade overturned

Page 42 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,998
4,476
126
You enabled this. You literally have been supporting this behavior for years on here. I always knew you would pull this bullshit, but you need to be reminded constantly for your role in this.
Forget national politics. Forget policy. You want to attack people, and you choose me.

I, who, when I was still a teenager, voted a Republican for President once.
Then, until 2016, I was independent. The arrival of Trump was too disgusting to ignore.

You want to come to blows VS Democrat voters who you deem not pure enough?
Fuck you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
10,319
6,969
146
Forget national politics. Forget policy. You want to attack people, and you choose me.

I, who, when I was still a teenager, voted a Republican for President once.
Then, until 2016, I was independent. The arrival of Trump was too disgusting to ignore.

You want to come to blows VS Democrat voters who you deem not pure enough?
Fuck you.
Not to go all moony, but you're projecting how you feel about yourself. You'll be a happier person if you admit you were snowed, and contributed to a problem, and are seeking a way to change it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JD50 and dank69

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
30,058
17,066
136
You are sort of correct, the majority of abortions are performed out of convenience. Statistics show that prospective mothers worry about money, education interruption, poor timing etc. Obviously the best thing is to avoid the pregnancy in the first place, we should be throwing contraceptives around like candy to our vulnerable population. However statistics also show that the majority of abortions are among poorer women, that can't afford or access contraception, and minorities.

Given the fact that most abortions are among the poorer white women or poorer minority women, you'd think the conservatives would be watering at the mouth knowing that less poor and brown babies are being made in the US to suck off of the welfare system and bring the white man down.
I wouldn't call not being able to afford raising a child convenience. Conservatives will hold a gun to a womans head to carry to term but then deny them coverage for living assistance.
 

eelw

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 1999
6,269
1,205
126

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
11,665
6,110
136
I'm calling my local Congresswoman to suggest that today. Let's see if her office is receptive.

That would be a massive talking point, "Republicans are taking away your birth control"
I would, but I have neo-fascists as Congress people.
 

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,048
1,615
136
A thought or question that popped in my mind, that I don't have an answer for: What roll will the Hipaa laws play in all this if Roe Vs Wade is indeed over turned? Do women lose their privacy rights under the Hipaa laws? Even now, how can the 6wk abortion ban law passed in Texas be enforceable without violating the Hipaa laws, specially since it's written to keep the government out of it, putting it on the citizens?
 
Last edited:

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
19,805
6,513
136
Exactly. I do not understand why democrats are so bad at this. Bring up a federal bill that guarantees abortion rights in case of rape or incest only. If it passes and SCOTUS upholds it great, you just increased abortion rights. If SCOTUS strikes it down it further undermines them. If Republicans block it they are holding a super unpopular stance.

How is this hard to understand.
I knew Schumer being majority leader would be a mistake from the beginning. He's just not up to the task when we need someone much better especially now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
10,319
6,969
146
A thought or question that popped in my mind, that I don't have an answer for: What roll will the Hipaa laws play in all this if Roe Vs Wade is indeed over turned? Do women lose their privacy rights under the Hipaa laws? Even now, how can the 6wk abortion ban law passed in Texas be enforceable without violating the Hipaa laws, specially since it's written to keep the government out of it, putting it on the citizens?
I mean, we can't even keep constitutional protections. I don't see why we'd be able to keep HIPPA privacy. SC will probably rule it unconstitutional because it prevents the govt from saving unborn persons, or something.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
75,596
29,685
136
A thought or question that popped in my mind, that I don't have an answer for: What roll will the Hipaa laws play in all this if Roe Vs Wade is indeed over turned? Do women lose their privacy rights under the Hipaa laws? Even now, how can the 6wk abortion ban law passed in Texas be enforceable without violating the Hipaa laws, specially since it's written to keep the government out of it, putting it on the citizens?
I'm pretty sure records covered by Hipaa can be accessed subsequent to a subpoena in a lawsuit so once they sue the providers they could get the records.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,691
10,667
136
I'm pretty sure records covered by Hipaa can be accessed subsequent to a subpoena in a lawsuit so once they sue the providers they could get the records.
Under HIPAA, in the case of a subpoena, medical records can be produced by the provider, but only if the patients whose records are covered by the subpoena are notified and given an opportunity to object to the production of their records.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
19,805
6,513
136
Don't they teach a logic course somewhere in pre law?

Legal expert finds “fatal flaw” in Samuel Alito’s leaked abortion opinion | Salon.com

"That standard, known as the Glucksberg test, is lifted from the 1997 case upholding Washington's ban on assisted suicide," Lisa Rubin wrote. She then explained why Washington v. Glucksberg is key.

"But what makes Justice Alito's analysis truly disingenuous is its distortion of the one case on which it depends: Glucksberg. In that case, the Court found a person's liberty interest, as recognized by Casey, was not limitless and did not guarantee terminally-ill adults the right to end their own lives. Yet in distinguishing physician-assisted suicide from 'those personal activities and decisions that this Court has identified as so deeply rooted in our history and traditions, or so fundamental to our concept of constitutionally ordered liberty, that they are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment,' the Court left no doubt which decisions and history it meant," she explained. "In fact, it expressly lists them in a footnote, as the clinic's lawyer reminded Justice Alito at oral argument, that includes Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a right to contraception; Loving v. Virginia, which guaranteed the freedom to marry a person of another race; and Roe itself, noting that that opinion 'stat[ed] that at the Founding and throughout the 19th century, 'a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy.''"

Rubin then explained that Alito's legal reasoning did not add up.

"In other words, Obergefell treats Glucksberg as wholly inappropriate for any analysis of marriage and intimacy rights. In fact, in dissenting from Obergefell, Justice Roberts — who, as of this week, had not joined Justice Alito's opinion in Dobbs — went even further, complaining that Obergefell 'effectively overrule[d] Glucksberg.' So if Glucksberg itself held that decisions like Loving v. Virginia, Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe, and Casey, which established our rights to interracial marriage, contraception, and abortion, fulfilled its standard and Obergefell distinguished Glucksberg as irrelevant to marriage and intimacy, how can Justice Alito justify overruling Roe with a case that, by its own terms, recognizes its vitality?" she wondered.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
75,596
29,685
136
Don't they teach a logic course somewhere in pre law?

Legal expert finds “fatal flaw” in Samuel Alito’s leaked abortion opinion | Salon.com

"That standard, known as the Glucksberg test, is lifted from the 1997 case upholding Washington's ban on assisted suicide," Lisa Rubin wrote. She then explained why Washington v. Glucksberg is key.

"But what makes Justice Alito's analysis truly disingenuous is its distortion of the one case on which it depends: Glucksberg. In that case, the Court found a person's liberty interest, as recognized by Casey, was not limitless and did not guarantee terminally-ill adults the right to end their own lives. Yet in distinguishing physician-assisted suicide from 'those personal activities and decisions that this Court has identified as so deeply rooted in our history and traditions, or so fundamental to our concept of constitutionally ordered liberty, that they are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment,' the Court left no doubt which decisions and history it meant," she explained. "In fact, it expressly lists them in a footnote, as the clinic's lawyer reminded Justice Alito at oral argument, that includes Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a right to contraception; Loving v. Virginia, which guaranteed the freedom to marry a person of another race; and Roe itself, noting that that opinion 'stat[ed] that at the Founding and throughout the 19th century, 'a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy.''"

Rubin then explained that Alito's legal reasoning did not add up.

"In other words, Obergefell treats Glucksberg as wholly inappropriate for any analysis of marriage and intimacy rights. In fact, in dissenting from Obergefell, Justice Roberts — who, as of this week, had not joined Justice Alito's opinion in Dobbs — went even further, complaining that Obergefell 'effectively overrule[d] Glucksberg.' So if Glucksberg itself held that decisions like Loving v. Virginia, Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe, and Casey, which established our rights to interracial marriage, contraception, and abortion, fulfilled its standard and Obergefell distinguished Glucksberg as irrelevant to marriage and intimacy, how can Justice Alito justify overruling Roe with a case that, by its own terms, recognizes its vitality?" she wondered.
The answer is very simple - by not giving a shit.
 

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,048
1,615
136
I'm pretty sure records covered by Hipaa can be accessed subsequent to a subpoena in a lawsuit so once they sue the providers they could get the records.
Yep.


I thought of that as well, but.. but.. you can't really get a court order on hearsay, there has to be some grounds to subpoena those records. How can you sue the provider without the proof that those medical records have inside of them? Under the current climate, many women won't tell anyone they are even pregnant. So what grounds will they offer to the court that they need to see those medical records that isn't hear say? They can't say "well, we think she had an abortion".. which would require proof she was pregnant to begin with. . I think this is going to either get more complicated and messier than realized, the Hipaa Laws will be ruled unconstitutional as mentioned by [DHT]Osiris, or the Hipaa Law will be modified to exclude privacy for women is some form removing the need for a subpoena.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY