Abortion

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 2,594 comments
  • 121,881 views
Eunos_Cosmo
There's at least a there, there. One person was damaged by another. That's pretty simple. But this...it's so abstract and there's nothing fundamentally at it's core. You might as well have a law where anyone can sue anyone for breathing or eating cheese, I don't see a difference. If there is no damage, there is no grounds for a suit. If there is no inherent criminal activity, then there can be no enforcement. That's my take and how I would opine if I was a Supreme Court Justice.
Click to expand...
That may end up being what undercuts the ban if it's ultimately taken up by the Supreme Court. For the time being, the law and the rat ****ers who drafted it really don't care whether there's any there there. It may not get that far, with a challenge to Roe set to fall before the primarily anti-choice conservative Court in mere months.
Danoff
Fair enough. Let's look at it this way, abortions (in the state) fell off a cliff after the law passed, and not because the law is a bluff. I actually know an abortion provider in Texas, and he complied with the law immediately. He couldn't be sued by some crazy right-wingers because he didn't risk his practice over it.

www.axios.com

Abortions in Texas dropped by 60% in month after ban took effect

There were 5,404 clinic abortions conducted in August. The number fell dramatically in September to 2,197.
www.axios.com www.axios.com
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, the law is intended to stop abortions for as long as possible. The rat ****ers behind it explicitly stated as much. They don't care that they've opened Pandora's Box with this tactic; they revel in it. Other rat ****ers in Florida are doing this for speech, with their "Stop W.O.K.E. Act" similarly subjecting protected speech by private actors to a private right of action.
 
Did Lizelle Herrera's hospital violate HIPAA by reporting her abortion to the authorities?
 
Last edited:
UKMikey
Did Lizelle Herrera's hospital violate HIPAA by reporting her abortion to the authorities?
Click to expand...
It's an interesting question. I don't have the slightest idea, but maybe @Joey D could shed some light (at their discretion and convenience, of course), provided the answer doesn't vary too wildly between states. I gather standards may not apply to dedicated abortion service providers, but this was a case of a woman being treated by healthcare providers likely subject to HIPAA standards subsequent to self-termination.

Whether they did or not, I expect there to be significant overlap between those individuals who think direct inquiry about vaccination status is (or should be) a HIPAA violation and those individuals who think a hospital's reporting of a patient's recent abortion is not (or should not be) a HIPAA violation.
 
UKMikey
Did Lizelle Herrera's hospital violate HIPAA by reporting her abortion to the authorities?
Click to expand...
I don't know all the ins and outs of the case, but that's more than likely a HIPAA violation. You typically sign a HIPAA agreement prior to treatment that spells out all sorts of stuff and while the hospital can release information in certain cases, it's very specific in what can be released and typically revolves around mental health and whether or not you're a danger to yourself or society. Information can also be released for research purposes, however, that always had all identifying information removed.

Typically, if authorities need information from a hospital, they must get a warrant. Even getting lab results in the case of a fatal auto accident requires a warrant (to see what was in the person's system).
 
The party of small government and states' rights.

I've said it before: They want federal enforcement of their preferred prohibitions. When they oppose federal prohibition/legislation, they suddenly want small government and states' rights again.





Click to expand...

This, by the way, is the correct take.

Screenshot-20220502-154056-Samsung-Internet.jpg


The moment the rat ****ers have the votes to pass something but not clear the filibuster, the filibuster is gone.

As an aside, the chunky monkey pictured in the article thumbnail in the into tweet at the top is exactly who I picture when I hear the phrase "anti-abortion activist." I don't even know who it is, but that is the image that pops into my head. Chins and all. It's...unfortunate.
 
Danoff
Apparently the axe falls in June. At least that's my prediction. Roe ends in June, and we go to a state-by-state system for abortion.
Click to expand...
Seems like it arrived a little earlier. I'm angry, but it's not like it wasn't obvious that it was coming.
 
Danoff
Seems like it arrived a little earlier. I'm angry, but it's not like it wasn't obvious that it was coming.
Click to expand...
If it goes back to state-to-state, wouldn't that mean Texas law for abortion (or creating civil penalties on those seeking abortion outside of the state) would become problematic for them?
 
Heh… if you really want something, you can make up whatever BS you want to justify your opinion, even saying things like Roe decision created more division (so overturning it will make things less divided? Riiight) or gems like this one:

““Some such supporters have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African American population,” Alito writes. “It is beyond dispute that Roe has had that demographic effect. A highly disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are black.””
I wonder why that is…Yeah, right to an abortion is suppressing African American population…
I wonder if this genius also wrote that abortion is suppressing women's rights, because men can force women to have abortions.
 
Last edited:
FuriousDemon
Heh… if you really want something, you can make up whatever BS you want to justify your opinion, even saying things like Roe decision created more division (so overturning it will make things less divided? Riiight) or gems like this one:

““Some such supporters have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African American population,” Alito writes. “It is beyond dispute that Roe has had that demographic effect. A highly disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are black.””
I wonder why that is…Yeah, right to an abortion is suppressing African American population…
I wonder if this genius also wrote that abortion is suppressing women's rights, because men can force women to have abortions.
Click to expand...
Though it appears in the draft opinion by Alito, I gather this one draws considerably from Thomas...because of course it does.



Edit: This isn't to say that the rat ****er Alito isn't completely gone, mind you. That fact has long been established.
 
Last edited:
Definitely not the greatest country in the world anymore, and hasn't been for a while now. Our government just keeps piling their dung on top of us.
 
Blitz24
If it goes back to state-to-state, wouldn't that mean Texas law for abortion (or creating civil penalties on those seeking abortion outside of the state) would become problematic for them?
Click to expand...
The Texas law simply has to be struck down by the supremes. It can't be allowed to stand. And given that they're overturning roe on this other case, perhaps they'll finally get ride of the abortion that is the texas abortion law.
 
Danoff
The Texas law simply has to be struck down by the supremes. It can't be allowed to stand. And given that they're overturning roe on this other case, perhaps they'll finally get ride of the abortion that is the texas abortion law.
Click to expand...
That's the thing. Even if there is a push on Roe v. Wade, this would automatically mean that state laws could be made to allow for safe abortion. The states that have anti-abortion laws cannot prosecute someone performing a procedure that's legal in another state.
 
Blitz24
That's the thing. Even if there is a push on Roe v. Wade, this would automatically mean that state laws could be made to allow for safe abortion. The states that have anti-abortion laws cannot prosecute someone performing a procedure that's legal in another state.
Click to expand...
Yes they can. And I imagine they will.

I also imagine that they will pass something that technically applies ex post facto - even though they shouldn't be able to enforce such a thing (arguably, the civil bounties could be written to apply ex post facto). These states are not even bothering to figure out what ectopic pregnancy is before they ban it, so I can't imagine that they will all be super careful about figuring out whether a law technically reads on abortions that took place prior to the law going into effect.

Meaning I fully expect at least one southern state to make 10s or even 100s of thousands of women criminals overnight. Oh you took a plan B pill in 2016? That's now illegal to have done. Maybe we won't arrest you. Maybe if we do arrest you, you can rely on the insane supreme court people that just went on a nutty tirade about how abhorrent abortion is, to protect your rights under ex post facto. Enjoy living with the uncertainty ladies.

I do hope there is a big flight from these states in response.
 
Last edited:
Alito seemed to be telegraphing an intent to take down Lawrence and Obergefell should challenges be presented, and I fully expect red states to go after the availability of birth control--a once fringe agenda that's suddenly much more prevalent among vocal ideologues--in earnest next.
 
TexRex
Alito seemed to be telegraphing an intent to take down Lawrence and Obergefell should challenges be presented, and I fully expect red states to go after the availability of birth control--a once fringe agenda that's suddenly much more prevalent among vocal ideologues--in earnest next.
Click to expand...
Which should also mean making vasectomies illegal too and the sale of condoms. I mean what's good for one should be good for the other one right?

I'm also anticipating these redneck hillbillies down here going after a woman if she had a miscarriage. I mean after all she had to do something intentionally to end that pregnancy didn't she? There's just no way that dear little lord baby jesus would allow that to happen unless the mother intervened somehow. But I bet if the mother is a republican the ****kickers will look the other way.
 
Jezza819
Which should also mean making vasectomies illegal too and the sale of condoms. I mean what's good for one should be good for the other one right?

I'm also anticipating these redneck hillbillies down here going after a woman if she had a miscarriage. I mean after all she had to do something intentionally to end that pregnancy didn't she? There's just no way that dear little lord baby jesus would allow that to happen unless the mother intervened somehow. But I bet if the mother is a republican the ****kickers will look the other way.
Click to expand...
Basically means the right to have an abortion will be determined by how much money you have to leave the state for one that allows abortions.

(Off-topic, while my religion is against abortions (unless having the baby would directly harm the mother), I do not feel that a country promoting freedom of religion should force another religion's viewpoints on people who do not follow said religion.)
 
Last edited:
TexRex
Alito seemed to be telegraphing an intent to take down Lawrence and Obergefell should challenges be presented
Click to expand...
Yea that one is another painful one on the chopping block. I can only hope that they don't have enough votes for that one.
 
Blitz24
That's the thing. Even if there is a push on Roe v. Wade, this would automatically mean that state laws could be made to allow for safe abortion. The states that have anti-abortion laws cannot prosecute someone performing a procedure that's legal in another state.
Click to expand...
They can't but it hasn't stopped rumors of 1 or 2 states already thinking about it well before yesterday.
Blitz24
Basically means the right to have an abortion will be determined by how much money you have to leave the state for one that allows abortions.

(Off-topic, while my religion is against abortions (unless having the baby would directly harm the mother), I do not feel that a country promoting freedom of religion should force another religion's viewpoints on people who do not follow said religion.)
Click to expand...
TMU, this has always been an underlying issue with the banning of abortions, that it heavily affects poorer Americans. But, Republicans doing things that screw over poorer Americans in their areas isn't new, either.
 
Danoff
Yea that one is another painful one on the chopping block. I can only hope that they don't have enough votes for that one.
Click to expand...
Which?

Lawrence reaffirmed the right to privacy precedent in Roe and a third of the Court (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas) dissented.

Obergefell just barely eked by, by virtue of Kennedy's swing, and likely does have the votes against with the current Court demographics.
 
Biden has signaled that he wants congress to act to establish freedom for abortion. I suppose it's possible, I wonder how many pro-choice senators there are. A few key issues jump out.


First, I'd be interested to see whether the supremes would uphold that law, or strike it down as being a federal power that does not exist. I'd almost be happy if they did strike such a law down because otherwise it leads to some potentially terrible outcomes. One potentially terrible outcome is a republican controlled congress and presidency banning abortion nationwide. If the democrats can legally prevent states from banning abortion, perhaps the republicans can legally prevent states from allowing abortion. Congress passing a law allowing abortion nationwide, only to have it struck down, would be good from the perspective that it would provide temporary access to abortion throughout the country, but also would prevent (at least by precedent, ha!) shutting off abortion access nationwide by republicans in the future. Having such a law made and having it struck down could potentially be the best outcome if you assume that having the law made and never having republicans try the same trick is simply not a feasible best outcome.

The other potentially terrible outcome is if congress passes a law allowing abortion and it gets upheld by the supreme court. But then republicans remove it every time they control congress and the presidency. Having abortion rights swing back and forth based on political power either at the federal or state level would be terrible. Let's see, it's Tuesday, is it legal to have an abortion today?

The idea that this is a state rights issue is absurd. It's not. We're talking about whether this is the murder (fetus) or subjugation (woman) of a human being, there is no room for states to legalize or ban it either way. The reason is because it's a human rights issue, and states and governments simply do not and cannot have the power to change what is or is not a fundamental human right.

The idea that this can swing back and forth is absurd.

Edit:

TexRex
Which?

Lawrence reaffirmed the right to privacy precedent in Roe and a third of the Court (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas) dissented.

Obergefell just barely eked by, by virtue of Kennedy's swing, and likely does have the votes against with the current Court demographics.
Click to expand...
I was thinking Obergefell.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back