Roe v Wade has been overturned. How do you feel about that?

[Cerin]

Whoa! Where did those goalposts go?

The claim was that Joe Manchin would have voted for a bill that (a) permitted abortions with limitations like those imposed in France or (b) codified Roe.

The bill whose text that I provided, which Joe Manchin voted against, codifies Roe.

This article agrees with you that the new bill codifies Roe, and agrees that Manchin said he would vote for a bill that codified Roe, so I guess only Joe Manchin could comment on how he sees the new bill as 'expanding abortion rights.'

Speaking to the news media ahead of his “no” vote, Manchin claimed he'd support a bill that would “codify Roe v. Wade,” the federal abortion rights ruling, which is precisely what the Women’s Health Protection Act would do. But Manchin won't back that bill because, he claimed, it would “expand” abortion rights.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reido ... -rcna28522

edit: I would note that I saw an article or report yesterday about Sens. Murkowski and Collins vowing to work on a bill that codified Roe, which could be seen to imply that they also perceive some advancement of abortion rights in the bill that was voted down (just speculating here). I mean, why write a new bill if there is already one available to proffer that does what they want?

[Cerin]

Searching 'difference between Women's Health Protection Act and Roe v. Wade' yielded this quote from Susan Collins:

"My goal is to codify what is essentially existing law. That means Roe v. Wade, it means Casey versus Planned Parenthood, which established the undue burden test. And it means keeping the conscience protections which appear to be wiped out by the Democrats' version. So I'm not trying to go beyond current law or, but rather to codify those Supreme Court decisions," Collins told ABC News' Trish Turner on Thursday.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/womens- ... d=84491568

So apparently there are differences seen by some people who are thoroughly familiar with both laws (or, as I should say, with the SCOTUS decision and the bill).

[N.E. Brigand]

Searching 'difference between Women's Health Protection Act and Roe v. Wade' yielded this quote from Susan Collins:

"My goal is to codify what is essentially existing law. That means Roe v. Wade, it means Casey versus Planned Parenthood, which established the undue burden test. And it means keeping the conscience protections which appear to be wiped out by the Democrats' version. So I'm not trying to go beyond current law or, but rather to codify those Supreme Court decisions," Collins told ABC News' Trish Turner on Thursday.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/womens- ... d=84491568

So apparently there are differences seen by some people who are thoroughly familiar with both laws (or, as I should say, with the SCOTUS decision and the bill).

The explanation may be Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which Collins also cites. That's a 1992 decision which upheld Roe but changed the standards somewhat. However, as far as I can see, it didn't remove the health of the mother as a sufficient reason to permit an abortion after viability.

[N.E. Brigand]

A new CBS poll finds that Americans believe by a 59%-41% margin* that the Supreme Court was wrong to overturn Roe on Friday and by a 52%-31% margin that the decision is a "a step backward for America." And 56% of respondents say the decision will make life worse for women.

*Independents believe that Friday's decision was wrong by a 62%-38% margin in that poll.

50% of Democrats say they are more likely to vote in November because of this decision, as opposed to 28% of Independents and 20% of Republicans. We'll see.

[N.E. Brigand]

Such patient. Many peaceful.

Rhode Island cop arrested for assault on political opponent at abortion rights rally after Supreme Court Roe ruling

A Providence, Rhode Island, police officer who had been running for state Senate was arrested on charges related to his alleged physical assault on his political opponent at an abortion rights rally.
The arrest of Jeann Lugo came hours after video of his alleged attack while off-duty on fellow Senate candidate Jen Rourke outside the Rhode Island State House went viral on Twitter.
The incident came at a protest over the Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion.

At least this Republican politician has dropped out of the race after allegedly violently attacking his pro-choice opponent.

[N.E. Brigand]

Former Trump White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders is running for the governorship of Arkansas. She says that when she wins (as she is likely to do), "We will make sure that when a kid is in the womb, they're as safe as they are in a classroom."

Need anything further be added?

- - - - - - - - - - -
Congresswoman Mary Miller, a Republican from Illinois, introduced Donald Trump at a rally yesterday and praised Trump for making Friday's decision possible. She said it was a "victory for white lives."

Later she said she had misread her speech, but:

1. That's a very odd mistake to make and not correct immediately.

2. Miller had previously (on Jan. 5, 2021) positively quoted a speech by Adolf Hitler.

3. Trump didn't know what she said was a mistake (if it was), but he nodded approvingly.

4. The crowd didn't know what she said was a mistake (if it was), but they cheered approvingly.

[River]

The cheering of the verbal misfire kinda says something about that crowd. Unless it wasn't actually a misfire, she's just saying it is because another, bigger crowd, is most emphatically NOT cheering.

Former Trump White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders is running for the governorship of Arkansas. She says that when she wins (as she is likely to do), "We will make sure that when a kid is in the womb, they're as safe as they are in a classroom."

Need anything further be added?

So I guess the whackjobs with AR-15s will be diverting from blowing apart children in their classrooms to blowing apart pregnant ladies going in to see their OBs now... Which makes me wonder, with Roe struck down, what are the gun fetishists to start change the subject to next time an roomful of grade schoolers gets murdered by a whackjob with an AR-15? Especially if it happens in a place like Texas, where abortion is banned and guns are everywhere and the local cops will choose not to intervene if someone decides to take out a bunch of fourth graders.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

3. Trump didn't know what she said was a mistake (if it was), but he nodded approvingly appallingly.

4. The crowd didn't know what she said was a mistake (if it was), but they cheered approvingly appallingly.

I fixed it for you.

[RoseMorninStar]

What should the penalties/charges be? Murder? The death penalty? For the woman, the doctor, the father? Maternity care and delivery is extremely expensive, who should pay for the costs of unwanted children, especially in the cases of rape and incest? The foster system is overburdened and is a horror story based on what I've heard from those who have been in the system. I've been told it's not uncommon to be used for labor (like a slave) or be subjected to physical or sexual abuse. We no longer have orphanages.

[River]

We no longer have orphanages.

Well, we sorta do.

Right now there's actually a backlog of parents who want to adopt. If and when that backlog fills up, though...

Adoption comes with its own thorny ethical issues and emotional scars. I used to know a woman who had a teen pregnancy back in the 70's and was forced to give up the child. She desperately wanted to keep the baby but her family would not allow it. She was unable to have any more children.

Consent. It matters in all things, not just sex.

[River]

So I think a certain segment of the religious right is on notice now: Vatican Says 'Pro Life' Activists Must Fight For Gun Control.

The Vatican hailed the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, but said it is imperative that people who identify as “pro-life” also fight for critical life-protecting issues like gun control.

“Being for life always means defending it against the threat of firearms, which unfortunately have become a leading cause of death of children and adolescents in the U.S.,” the Vatican’s editorial director, Andrea Tornielli, chided Saturday in an essay.

“Pro-life” is not just about opposing abortion, he pointed out. Anti-abortion activists must be concerned with all issues that threaten life, such as easy access to guns, poverty and rising maternity mortality rates, which are alarmingly high in the U.S., Tornielli emphasized.

The maternal mortality rate in the U.S. has climbed from 20.1 deaths of women per 100,000 live births in 2019 to 23.8 per 100,000 in 2020, he noted, citing statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

And “strikingly,” maternal mortality rates are three times higher for Black women in the U.S., Tornielli added.

“Being for life, always, means asking how to help women welcome new life,” he added, noting that that 75% of women in America who have abortions live in poverty or are low-wage earners. And only 16% of workers in private industry have paid parental leave, he added.

“We can hope ... that the debate on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling will not be reduced to an ideological confrontation, but will prompt all of us ... to reflect on what it means to welcome life, to defend it, and to promote it with appropriate legislation,” Tornielli emphasized.

I wonder what the good Catholics Trump got on the Supreme Court think about that statement and their decision regarding gun control this past Thursday. And I wonder how the gun nut wing of the religious right (who aren't necessarily Catholic but tend to identify as pro-life and make common cause) is going to respond to this because somehow I don't think they'll appreciate the obvious link between access to firearms and death rates by firearms being rubbed in their faces in this manner. I also wonder what the pro-lifers who've frantically avoided the topics of prenatal care, maternal mortality, and infant mortality are going to do in the face of this call to action. Actually support some programs or get all mealy-mouthed they way they usually do? Time will tell...

[Frelga]

Former Trump White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders is running for the governorship of Arkansas. She says that when she wins (as she is likely to do), "We will make sure that when a kid is in the womb, they're as safe as they are in a classroom."

Well, she's not wrong

Homicide is a top cause of maternal death in the United States

The anti-safe-abortion crowd isn't worried about the unborn dying with the mother any more than they are about the living children being shot in the classroom.

V, "appalling" implies an element of surprise, and none of this is at all surprising to anyone who paid attention over the last 15 or so years.

[RoseMorninStar]

River, time will tell, but it will tell us what we've known all along; it's not about babies or being 'pro-life' from cradle to grave, it's about using women (and xygotes/fetuses) for control and power. If it were about loving support for all life we'd be living in a different kind of world. Certainly not one in which people hold a 'holy' book in one hand and a weapon of death in the other.

Which leads into Frelga's response:

The anti-safe-abortion crowd isn't worried about the unborn dying with the mother any more than they are about the living children being shot in the classroom.

They. Don't. Give. A. Damn.

Let's hope the homicide rate of pregnant women doesn't (further) skyrocket.

[N.E. Brigand]

Some person calling out the media in April 2016 for acting as if a woman's right to control her own body wasn't important:



She noted that in nine debates to that point featuring the Democratic contenders, no question on that subject had been asked.

[RoseMorninStar]

When I was younger I was very much in the 'pro-life'/anti-abortion camp. Over the years working (volunteering) with such efforts, it really hit home just how much it was not about 'pro-life' but only pro-fetus and political control. If it were about pro-life, we would have been working far harder for and with those struggling to feed, clothe, house, and educate said children. We would have been concerned about child care and job placement. There would have been less complaining about food and housing assistance for struggling families. It was the 'pro-life' movement (and it's lack of compassion) which made me a convert to the pro-choice camp.

[Sunsilver]

Rose, I love your post! It's not just either/or. I would love to see the number of abortions reduced, but that would require better access to birth control, better sex education, and better support for single mothers.

This is important to me, because my mother was an unwed mother whose boyfriend took off on her as soon as she found she was pregnant. If I'd been conceived after Roe vs. Wade, I probably wouldn't be here.

And I never would have gotten to know the wonderful, courageous woman that was my birth mother, or my adoptive parents.
And my birth mom would have died alone. I spent the better part of 5 days sitting by her side in the hospital as she was dying. No one else was there for her, except for one of her neighbours who came to help support me. So glad I was able to do that, though it was a very difficult, agonizing experience.

Sorry, have forgotten how to put the photos in spoiler tags, so they don't take up so much of the page!

[Frelga]

Sunny, I'm glad you are here,too.

My mom had access to safe, fairly private abortion. Dad recently came back from the military service, he was working and taking night classes to finish his degree. In retrospect, I was an inconvenient baby. It's a great comfort, as an adult and a mother, to know that mom wasn't forced to have me, that she chose to. And if she didn't? I guess y'alls would never realize what you were missing.

And yeah, I'm all in for women needing fewer abortions. And having fewer miscarriages, since we are concerned about the unborn.

For-profit adoptions industry is another side of criminalizing abortions, and it's not a bright side .

[Sunsilver]

And that's one of the reasons I wasn't able to have children, something I deeply regret.

Crying as I go back and read what happened during that horrible time:

http://thehalloffire.net/forum/viewtopi ... 57#p321057
http://thehalloffire.net/forum/viewtopi ... 10#p322310

[Túrin Turambar]

I've got very little to say on this subject that hasn't already been said, but I don't know why most of the anger seems to be directed towards the Supreme Court. Shouldn't it be directed at the state legislators who have passed or are passing laws to ban abortion?

[Alatar]

From my NYT Summary email this morning

Good morning. After abortion, how is the Supreme Court likely to change American society next?

The impatient, ambitious five

Protesting for abortion rights in Brooklyn last month.Gabriela Bhaskar/The New York Times
My colleague Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court, describes the five Republican-appointed justices besides Chief Justice John Roberts as “an impatient, ambitious majority.”

They have largely rejected Roberts’s more cautious approach of deciding cases narrowly and shifting the law slowly. The five instead prefer to set American law as they believe it should be set, even when they must overrule longstanding precedent. To do otherwise, they believe, is dishonest.

After the court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday, one obvious question was: What other legal changes might soon be coming? Initial attention has focused on the possibility that the court may soon restrict L.G.B.T. rights, contraception access or interracial marriage. All those issues involve some of the same logic that led to the abortion decision, as both Justice Clarence Thomas and the three liberal justices pointed out in their writings accompanying the decision.

But those are not actually the hot-button issues that the court is likely to consider next. In today’s newsletter, I want to focus on the divisive decisions that are more likely to come soon. One of those rulings could happen today; the court is scheduled to announce some of its final rulings of the term shortly after 10 a.m. Eastern.

Kavanaugh’s position
The first reason to doubt that the court is on the verge of overturning the constitutional right to same-sex marriage, interracial marriage or contraception access comes straight from Friday’s abortion ruling. In a separate concurrence explaining his vote, Justice Brett Kavanaugh — one of the impatient, ambitious five — explicitly signaled that those other rights were safe.

In his 12-page concurrence, Kavanaugh wrote that he wanted to address “how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage.” He then listed four cases dealing with those issues, including the 2015 ruling establishing a right to same-sex marriage. “Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents,” Kavanaugh explained.

Unless Kavanaugh changes his mind — or Roberts decides to overturn those precedents — there is no majority to do so. For now, only Thomas has said that he favors revisiting the earlier cases. “I don’t think there are five votes for overturning any of those decisions,” Adam Liptak said on a weekend episode of “The Daily.”

The second reason to think that other divisive issues will come first is that the court has already announced many of the cases it will hear next year. They tend to involve other topics — namely affirmative action, election laws and business regulation.

Affirmative action
It’s an issue that seems likely to define the court’s next term in the way that abortion did this term. The court has agreed to hear two cases, one challenging the use of race in admissions at a public university (the University of North Carolina) and one at a private university (Harvard).

I have been writing about this subject for the past two decades, and university officials I’ve spoken with are far more worried that the court will outlaw their current admissions approach than they were during the run-up to previous Supreme Court cases. If that happens, the number of Black students at selective colleges seems especially likely to decline.


The Harvard campus in March.Kayana Szymczak for The New York Times
The core argument for affirmative action is simple: In a society where racism and racial inequities remain defining problems, ignoring race in admissions or hiring decisions is fundamentally unfair.

Yet affirmative action — at least as it has typically been practiced in the U.S. — tends to be unpopular. When the policy appears on the ballot in state referendums, it usually loses, even in liberal states like California. (Poll questions, depending on their wording, point in contradictory directions.)

One problem may be that traditional affirmative action has put nearly all of its focus on race, with little to no weight on economic class. That approach has probably hurt the policy’s support among many white, Asian and even Latino voters. Its thin popular support, in turn, would make it easier for conservative justices to ban a policy they have long opposed.

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” Roberts once wrote.

Is there any chance the court will stop short of outlawing affirmative action? Sure. Many corporate executives and military leaders support the policy, and they could plausibly sway the justices. But most court watchers consider that outcome improbable.

In a 2003 ruling upholding affirmative action, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor — a more moderate Republican appointee — suggested that she thought the policy might no longer be necessary “25 years from now.” If the court scraps the policy in 2023, the current impatient, ambitious majority would be only five years ahead of O’Connor’s timetable.

And two more
Two other contentious subjects on the court’s docket are election law and business regulation. On both, the court — including Roberts — has recently leaned strongly to the political right.

Election laws. The court has already agreed to hear a case about whether Alabama can draw a congressional map that packs many Black voters into a single congressional district, effectively diluting their political power. About 27 percent of Alabama’s residents are Black, and the state has seven House districts.

The court may also decide to hear a case that could limit the ability of state courts to review how state legislatures draw districts and otherwise oversee elections. Adam Liptak recently wrote an article that explains why the issue is so important — especially when many Republican legislators have signaled a willingness to overturn election results.

Business regulation. Even before President Donald Trump’s three appointees shifted the court to the right, it tended to take a laissez-faire approach, limiting Congress’s ability to regulate corporate behavior. The current court may go even further, especially on climate policy, and rule that federal agencies cannot limit pollution unless Congress has given them specific authority to do so.

The court will hear one case involving the Clean Water Act in October and will likely issue a ruling involving the E.P.A. this week. I’ll go into more detail on this subject once that ruling is announced.

More on abortion
Anti-abortion activists are pushing more states to adopt bans and prohibit traveling for abortions, while opponents have pledged to fight so-called trigger laws in court.
The Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the only clinic in Mississippi, was at the center of the case that overturned Roe. It will close in a few days.
In Opinion, Pamela Paul writes that America’s most exceptional trait is its lack of mercy. And Ross Douthat argues that abortion opponents have a longer-term battle to win.