State abortion laws megathread

[MarkD]

Here's what I would like to see happen.

1) Overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey; there were not valid, accurate interpretations of the Constitution.

2) Every state hold a referendum for an amendment to the state constitution on the subject of whether the state is predominantly pro-life or predominantly pro-choice. I believe Nevada has already done this 29 years ago and they're pro-choice.

Who's with me?

No, part one is clearly wrong.

Maybe society wasn’t ready for Roe but the fact still remains that the only alternative was to say that the state has police powers to enforce laws which could only be effectively enforced by getting evidence before getting a warrant. The only way that this might be permissible would be that if a fetus had a fundamental right to not be aborted and the constitution explicitly provided no room for that  interpretation.

That's not what I'm saying at all. The fact is that the Constitution is completely silent about the topic of abortion, neither guaranteeing that women have a right to it nor requiring that it be prohibited. Before Roe abortion was a matter that was being settled at the state level and that is where it should be returned to. So you didn't answer my question: do you agree with me that Roe should be overturned, and then should the states hold referendums to determine whether the electorate want the state to be pro-life or pro-choice?

[Person Man]

Here's what I would like to see happen.

1) Overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey; there were not valid, accurate interpretations of the Constitution.

2) Every state hold a referendum for an amendment to the state constitution on the subject of whether the state is predominantly pro-life or predominantly pro-choice. I believe Nevada has already done this 29 years ago and they're pro-choice.

Who's with me?

No, part one is clearly wrong.

Maybe society wasn’t ready for Roe but the fact still remains that the only alternative was to say that the state has police powers to enforce laws which could only be effectively enforced by getting evidence before getting a warrant. The only way that this might be permissible would be that if a fetus had a fundamental right to not be aborted and the constitution explicitly provided no room for that  interpretation.

That's not what I'm saying at all. The fact is that the Constitution is completely silent about the topic of abortion, neither guaranteeing that women have a right to it nor requiring that it be prohibited. Before Roe abortion was a matter that was being settled at the state level and that is where it should be returned to. So you didn't answer my question: do you agree with me that Roe should be overturned, and then should the states hold referendums to determine whether the electorate want the state to be pro-life or pro-choice?

I wasn't saying that was the reason why it was a bad idea just that it was correct but was a logical conclusion reached too soon. The Court has since then and before know that logically it must make a certain decision but does the other ways because society isn't ready for it. That's basically Bowers v. Hardwick. That is that certain things shouldn't be constitutional but we are simply not ready as a society for the consequences. That all sad, I would be interested in something that would be where each state had a fair and democratic way every 10 years  of deciding the exact abortion policy they would have.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

SCOTUS refuses to revive Alabama ban on dilation-and-evacuation abortions.

The total abortion ban passed this year is almost certainly DOA.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

SCOTUS refuses to revive Alabama ban on dilation-and-evacuation abortions.

The total abortion ban passed this year is almost certainly DOA.

Why? Courts are not legislatures. At least in theory, they make decisions based on principles, not effects. Any decision SCOTUS makes about individual procedures won't provide a way to lay out a presumably principled challenge to Roe. Indeed, it would have to assume the Roe line of decisions are valid. Conversely, a total ban provides a way to challenge Roe and potentially reverse it. I don't think this court will reverse Roe, but not because of this decision to not review a lower court striking down a ban on a single procedure.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

SCOTUS refuses to revive Alabama ban on dilation-and-evacuation abortions.

The total abortion ban passed this year is almost certainly DOA.

Why? Courts are not legislatures. At least in theory, they make decisions based on principles, not effects. Any decision SCOTUS makes about individual procedures won't provide a way to lay out a presumably principled challenge to Roe. Indeed, it would have to assume the Roe line of decisions are valid. Conversely, a total ban provides a way to challenge Roe and potentially reverse it. I don't think this court will reverse Roe, but not because of this decision to not review a lower court striking down a ban on a single procedure.

Why wouldn't this have been a good opportunity to address Casey and it's "undue burden" standard?   They could have at least greatly limited it's application by putting greater weight on the state interest in protecting unborn life.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

SCOTUS refuses to revive Alabama ban on dilation-and-evacuation abortions.

The total abortion ban passed this year is almost certainly DOA.

Why? Courts are not legislatures. At least in theory, they make decisions based on principles, not effects. Any decision SCOTUS makes about individual procedures won't provide a way to lay out a presumably principled challenge to Roe. Indeed, it would have to assume the Roe line of decisions are valid. Conversely, a total ban provides a way to challenge Roe and potentially reverse it. I don't think this court will reverse Roe, but not because of this decision to not review a lower court striking down a ban on a single procedure.

Why wouldn't this have been a good opportunity to address Casey and it's "undue burden" standard?   They could have at least greatly limited it's application by putting greater weight on the state interest in protecting unborn life.

Two reasons. First, it didn't ban all second trimester abortions but only a particular procedure. So one can't rationally argue that it trying to protect unborn life. Second, If one starts with the premise that abortion is constitutionally protected, then again one can't rationally say that the undue burden test isn't a reasonable standard.

Basically, for a ban against a procedure to be upheld while leaving other abortion rulings untouched, you'd have to argue that it doesn't place a burden to ban that particular procedure, and considering it is the usual method for second-term abortions, that would be an impossible standard to meet.

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/ReproRights/status/1139629010051313664

2 in 5 pregnancies ending in abortion in NYC isn't enough for them, apparently; now they need to subsidize abortion as an export.   absolutely revolting.

I think you're missing the point here. It's not about the number, it's about safe access and affordability if a woman is going to want one anyway.

If you are subsidizing something, it's because you don't think you have enough of it.  Let me know when they vote to give money to any pregnant women from anywhere who wants to give birth and I'll consider that they maybe don't just love abortions.

How else is NYC supposed to get rid of those "undesirable" black and Hispanic babies?

Yes, that is exactly what's going on here. The New York City Council, of which 24 out of 48 Democrats are African American and / Or Hispanic (plus two Asians) past this measure in order to exterminate their own people.

You are really having trouble trying to reconcile having turned your back on your once Progressive ideals in order to suck up to your Eagle Forum friends. Bad news, the result is you're not even an interesting troll anymore.

[Person Man]

SCOTUS refuses to revive Alabama ban on dilation-and-evacuation abortions.

The total abortion ban passed this year is almost certainly DOA.

Why? Courts are not legislatures. At least in theory, they make decisions based on principles, not effects. Any decision SCOTUS makes about individual procedures won't provide a way to lay out a presumably principled challenge to Roe. Indeed, it would have to assume the Roe line of decisions are valid. Conversely, a total ban provides a way to challenge Roe and potentially reverse it. I don't think this court will reverse Roe, but not because of this decision to not review a lower court striking down a ban on a single procedure.

Why wouldn't this have been a good opportunity to address Casey and it's "undue burden" standard?   They could have at least greatly limited it's application by putting greater weight on the state interest in protecting unborn life.

Two reasons. First, it didn't ban all second trimester abortions but only a particular procedure. So one can't rationally argue that it trying to protect unborn life. Second, If one starts with the premise that abortion is constitutionally protected, then again one can't rationally say that the undue burden test isn't a reasonable standard.

Basically, for a ban against a procedure to be upheld while leaving other abortion rulings untouched, you'd have to argue that it doesn't place a burden to ban that particular procedure, and considering it is the usual method for second-term abortions, that would be an impossible standard to meet.

That’s how they upheld partial birth abortion. Then again this is an earlier form of abortion. If they really wanted to they could just say abortion isn’t actually constitutionally protected or even if a fetus having a right not to be aborted isn’t an issue here then maybe that a fetus has other rights is.

[lfromnj]

https://coloradotimesrecorder.com/2019/06/coloradans-could-vote-on-banning-abortions-later-in-pregnancy/16114/

Colorado law to restrict it after 22 weeks

Provided this law gives an exemption for the life of the mother, I would vote for this considering the earliest fetus's viable can happen around 22 weeks.

A reasonable law which I think actually passes if it gets to the ballot. Most Americans oppose 3rd trimester abortion anyway even if you control for Colorado's relative social liberalism(aka white libs)

[DINGO Joe]

From deepest darkest WV (McDowellCo)

https://www.register-herald.com/news/another-person-charged-in-case-that-included-a-juvenile-given/article_54d90627-f6da-5996-a0da-acca8fd34844.html

Man lives with a woman and her 15 yr old daughter.  Man was given "permission" to sleep with the 15 yr old daughter and knocks her up.  After a Morning After pill apparently failed, an aunt obtained turpentine and they gave it to the girl to drink to end the pregnancy.  Everybody in jail except the 15 yr old who is with child protective services and maybe still pregnant (doesn't say).

[Person Man]

From deepest darkest WV (McDowellCo)

https://www.register-herald.com/news/another-person-charged-in-case-that-included-a-juvenile-given/article_54d90627-f6da-5996-a0da-acca8fd34844.html

Man lives with a woman and her 15 yr old daughter.  Man was given "permission" to sleep with the 15 yr old daughter and knocks her up.  After a Morning After pill apparently failed, an aunt obtained turpentine and they gave it to the girl to drink to end the pregnancy.  Everybody in jail except the 15 yr old who is with child protective services and maybe still pregnant (doesn't say).

I don’t know how this is about abortion law.

[Badger]

From deepest darkest WV (McDowellCo)

https://www.register-herald.com/news/another-person-charged-in-case-that-included-a-juvenile-given/article_54d90627-f6da-5996-a0da-acca8fd34844.html

Man lives with a woman and her 15 yr old daughter.  Man was given "permission" to sleep with the 15 yr old daughter and knocks her up.  After a Morning After pill apparently failed, an aunt obtained turpentine and they gave it to the girl to drink to end the pregnancy.  Everybody in jail except the 15 yr old who is with child protective services and maybe still pregnant (doesn't say).

I don’t know how this is about abortion law.

A vision of what to expect if roe is overturned, or even if access to legal abortion is even further restricted to urban areas. There is currently only one abortion clinic in the entire State, several hours away in Parkersburg.

Now, I am not remotely suggesting that getting your fifteen-year-old daughter to drink turpentine after letting your adult boyfriend sleep with her is remotely in any way fathomable an excuse for not making the ride, but s*** like this will undoubtedly happen with greater and greater frequency

[Person Man]

From deepest darkest WV (McDowellCo)

https://www.register-herald.com/news/another-person-charged-in-case-that-included-a-juvenile-given/article_54d90627-f6da-5996-a0da-acca8fd34844.html

Man lives with a woman and her 15 yr old daughter.  Man was given "permission" to sleep with the 15 yr old daughter and knocks her up.  After a Morning After pill apparently failed, an aunt obtained turpentine and they gave it to the girl to drink to end the pregnancy.  Everybody in jail except the 15 yr old who is with child protective services and maybe still pregnant (doesn't say).

I don’t know how this is about abortion law.

A vision of what to expect if roe is overturned, or even if access to legal abortion is even further restricted to urban areas. There is currently only one abortion clinic in the entire State, several hours away in Parkersburg.

Now, I am not remotely suggesting that getting your fifteen-year-old daughter to drink turpentine after letting your adult boyfriend sleep with her is remotely in any way fathomable an excuse for not making the ride, but s*** like this will undoubtedly happen with greater and greater frequency

Sure. I get that. It’s just this all fits into narrative that “both sides” push about marginalized groups causing extreme sociological and literal self harm when external  influence over them is diminished.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

In the Tennessee Senate Summer Session, the proposed heartbeat bill has been reworked as a conception bill (think Alabama, not Georgia).  It will be using the 9th Amendment to challenge Roe v. Wade.  Voting on it will not occur until the legislature reopens in January, but leadership appears to be on board with this and not worried about the legal concerns they had with the previous incarnation of a heartbeat bill.

TN passed a trigger bill in 2019 to completely ban abortion when Roe is overturned instead.

[MasterJedi]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/27/politics/abortion-8-week-ban-missouri/index.html

As expected the unconstitutional law is blocked, freedom wins for now.

[Person Man]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/27/politics/abortion-8-week-ban-missouri/index.html

As expected the unconstitutional law is blocked, freedom wins for now.

What about the Georgia and Alabama laws?

[Progressive Pessimist]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/27/politics/abortion-8-week-ban-missouri/index.html

As expected the unconstitutional law is blocked, freedom wins for now.

 

[Badger]

Terrible. Roe should be gutted like a fish.

Just like women seeking abortions after repeal will be.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Federal judge blocks Georgia's new anti-abortion law:

District Judge Steve C. Jones issued a ruling Tuesday blocking House Bill 481 from taking effect Jan. 1 while a challenge to the law makes its way through court.
...
Jones said the U.S. Supreme Court has “repeatedly and unequivocally” upheld Roe v Wade, saying a state may not ban abortion before it is viable — established in Roe as between 24 and 26 weeks of pregnancy.“What is clearly defined, however, is that under no circumstances whatsoever may a state prohibit or ban abortions at any point prior to viability, no matter what interests the state asserts to support it,” Jones wrote. “By banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, HB 481 prohibits women from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy at a point before viability.”

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/breaking-federal-judge-blocks-georgia-anti-abortion-law/yh1ttzbYdTcqiUT7OkyqkO/#

[Person Man]

Do you think there will ever be a time in this nation’s history where religious officials will be directly involved in legislating and enforcing laws regarding reproduction?

Like a priest or pastor would be a prosecutor and maybe a bishop or senior cleric a judge and church security would be arresting and jailing the accused and convicted.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Do you think there will ever be a time in this nation’s history where religious officials will be directly involved in legislating and enforcing laws regarding reproduction?

Like a priest or pastor would be a prosecutor and maybe a bishop or senior cleric a judge and church security would be arresting and jailing the accused and convicted.

No.  It's completely outside of our Constitution and our history.  Even in Puritan Massachusetts there was a division between secular and clerical authority.    Why do you ask?

[Person Man]

Do you think there will ever be a time in this nation’s history where religious officials will be directly involved in legislating and enforcing laws regarding reproduction?

Like a priest or pastor would be a prosecutor and maybe a bishop or senior cleric a judge and church security would be arresting and jailing the accused and convicted.

Massachusetts had a state religion until 1838.
No.  It's completely outside of our Constitution and our history.  Even in Puritan Massachusetts there was a division between secular and clerical authority.    Why do you ask?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Do you think there will ever be a time in this nation’s history where religious officials will be directly involved in legislating and enforcing laws regarding reproduction?

Like a priest or pastor would be a prosecutor and maybe a bishop or senior cleric a judge and church security would be arresting and jailing the accused and convicted.

Massachusetts had a state religion until 1838.
No.  It's completely outside of our Constitution and our history.  Even in Puritan Massachusetts there was a division between secular and clerical authority.    Why do you ask?

Government support for religion does not mean that the government and the church are identical.  They had different roles in society.

[Person Man]

Do you think there will ever be a time in this nation’s history where religious officials will be directly involved in legislating and enforcing laws regarding reproduction?

Like a priest or pastor would be a prosecutor and maybe a bishop or senior cleric a judge and church security would be arresting and jailing the accused and convicted.

Massachusetts had a state religion until 1838.
No.  It's completely outside of our Constitution and our history.  Even in Puritan Massachusetts there was a division between secular and clerical authority.    Why do you ask?

Government support for religion does not mean that the government and the church are identical.  They had different roles in society.

Could it coordinate in ways that makes it hard to figure out who is who from the outside? I can see cop cars parked in front of a large parish to complaints clergy have received.

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/RachelSB/status/1184293173838921728?s=20