main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Senate Abortion: Why not?

Discussion in 'Community' started by Boba Nekhbet, Feb 11, 2016.

  1. Jedi Ben

    Jedi Ben Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Jul 19, 1999
    Average time of that process from start to finish will be +9 months.
     
  2. blackmyron

    blackmyron Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2005
    The main purpose will obviously to prosecute anyone 'falsely' accusing someone of rape, i.e. every single rape accusation.
    Like with COVID, the Republican method for dealing with rape is to stop anyone reporting it.
     
    Juliet316 likes this.
  3. DarkGingerJedi

    DarkGingerJedi Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Amazing how just a few shy years ago these people were raging about Obamacare and the government getting in between them and their doctors.

    These people were never against death panels. They were only scared they wouldn't be the ones running them.
     
  4. CT-867-5309

    CT-867-5309 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 5, 2011
    It would just be one endless victim blaming, slut shaming, humiliation conga. Personally, I would consider it justification for terrorism.
     
  5. DarkGingerJedi

    DarkGingerJedi Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Judging by their leaders' comments over the few years-centuries, they don't think rape really ever even happens.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2022
  6. blackmyron

    blackmyron Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2005
    It's the 'compassionate conservatism' we always see here from posters:

    "OF course [racism/rape/misogyny] is wrong. And I'm the first to speak up against it! It's just not something that is happening these days. Also, people like me are the actual victims."
     
  7. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    That’s a great idea! In fact, let’s do it for all medical care, not just abortion.

    We could do coronary artery bypass grafting as long as you’re not too overweight or if the community determines your diet isn’t too unhealthy, we can determine insulin coverage for diabetics as long as you don’t eat too many sweets or stuff your fat face too often, we can cover blood pressure medications for people who are nice because angry people are raising their own blood pressure so why should we have to pay for their medications, etc.

    I could do this all night.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2022
  8. Lordban

    Lordban Isildur's Bane star 7

    Registered:
    Nov 9, 2000
    An example of how we live in very different countries.

    Our far left, in the frame offered by their own parliamentary time, offered a constitutional reform to sanctify the right to abortion. This wasn't seen as a necessity in France by and large, because, put in a few words, we aren't the USA. However, our far right decided to rebound on this, and propose to amend our far left's proposal so that the current rights to abortion (at will until 14 weeks have passed, on medical advice afterwards, with a clause of conscience for the doctor asked to intervene) be sanctuarised, so that the right to abortion, the clause of conscience, and the medical exceptions are all sanctified under our constitution.

    Passing this either requires getting through both the national assembly (where nobody has an absolute majority, but Macron's party has a relative one) and the senate (where the traditional right are going to have an absolute majority for another year before going down to a relative majority), and then either a two-thirds majority in a vote by the national assembly and the senate combined in congress or a majority in a referendum that asks a yes/no question on the constitutional revision.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2022
  9. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/23/abortion-pills-opponents-environmental-laws-00070603

    If President Vaderize were in power, my response would be as follows:

    "Sure, we'll allow the FDA to authorize further studies into drugs that have already been extensively studied and deemed environmentally safe, as soon as Congress lifts the ban on the CDC studying gun violence as a public health emergency. Isn't politics great?"

    Never happen, but it would be awesome to watch Republicans try and explain why that is a totally unreasonable tit-for-tat.
     
  10. Juliet316

    Juliet316 Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Apr 27, 2005

    It's through the National Assembly.
     
    Lordban likes this.
  11. Lordban

    Lordban Isildur's Bane star 7

    Registered:
    Nov 9, 2000
    Unfortunately, in a loose wording the senate will kill...
     
  12. Juliet316

    Juliet316 Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Apr 27, 2005
  13. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    Juliet316 likes this.
  14. Juliet316

    Juliet316 Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Apr 27, 2005
  15. Lordban

    Lordban Isildur's Bane star 7

    Registered:
    Nov 9, 2000
    Sometimes, a sordid event brings up legal questions about a fetus' rights and legal status.

    A French humorist has recently caused a road accident while driving under the influence of cocaine, an accident in which a pregnant woman lost her six-months fetus. And of course, the question that was raised is whether this can be considered a homicide. This is a higher profile case than usual, of course, prompting quite the discussion outside of legal circles about when the accidental killing of a fetus should fall under involuntary homicide.

    French law is razor-sharp on the matter: a person only has a legal existence from the point of birth, defined as the moment the baby takes its first breath. Since a fetus has no legal existence as a person yet, a fetus' death therefore cannot be ruled as a homicide under our justice system unless an attempt was made to save it: if the pregnant woman was operated on, and if the fetus was viable enough to take one breath before dying, there is a homicide.

    It is possible, since April 2021, for parents to declare a civilian identity for a deceased fetus - but that is a matter of civil law, and does not change the legal status.
     
    Rogue1-and-a-half likes this.
  16. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Skywalker Saga/LFL/YJCC Manager star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    How North Carolina became a beacon of bodily autonomy in the Southeast

    This article came out today, and I can hear the sounds of the heads exploding among creationist evangelicals in Scary North Carolina as I read it. Assuming they are literate or would look at the NYT.

    BTW, one of the leads of (lol) “Love Life” sued the city of Charlotte because the noise ordinance limited the volume of the amplifier he was using to harass clinic patients.

    Truth be told I don’t know how much longer abortion will be legal to 20 weeks in North Carolina—I suspected that the General Assembly fascists would be able to get at least one Democrat on their side for an anti-abortion bill and it looks like that is happening.
     
  17. PCCViking

    PCCViking Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Then there's this in South Carolina:

    Women in South Carolina who get abortions can face the death penalty.
     
  18. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Skywalker Saga/LFL/YJCC Manager star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Just listened to audio of Gretchen Whitmer saying “Who wants to watch me slay three zombies” while signing legislation codifying Roe and overturning an ancient Michigan law banning abortions.

    With North Carolina now infected by the zombie-resurrection fungus that is Tricia Cotham, that audio did me a lot of good.
     
    Juliet316, Vaderize03 and Runjedirun like this.
  19. PCCViking

    PCCViking Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Jun 12, 2014
    And the shoe has dropped regarding that ruling by the federal judge in Texas.
     
  20. Rogue1-and-a-half

    Rogue1-and-a-half Manager Emeritus who is writing his masterpiece star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 2, 2000
    It's just overall ridiculous to establish the precedent of a judge being able to tell the FDA what they can and can't approve. So the FDA approves a life-saving new drug and a judge overrules that and says it isn't approved and so a drug that could save lives is not available; well, this is actually, if I understand the case at hand, more or less what happened in Texas. On the other side, say the FDA rejects a drug for being unsafe and a judge overrules them and forces them to issue an approval, resulting in a dangerous, untested drug being released for use in treatments. These are both absolutely nightmarish and deadly scenarios. Absolutely absurd. A ruling like this would be unbelievable in a satire, which, of course, means it's a reality in the current USA.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2023
    Valairy Scot and Runjedirun like this.
  21. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    I mean, yes. This is the whole reason the Chevron doctrine existed for several decades until Republican Supreme Court Justices decided the FREE MARKET was more important and invented a new constitutional principle that is nowhere in the constitution to justify reversing it.
     
  22. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    This is actually a highly prescient comment. Another federal judge in Spokane, Washington, issued a conflicting ruling in regards to restrictions placed on abortion pills that in many ways directly conflicts with the Texas judges ruling.

    This will clearly end up in front of the Supreme Court sooner rather than later. Under their newly invented “Major Questions Doctrine”, they may very well wash their hands of having to rule on the merits of by stating that the Texas judge’s order was a rightful criticism of the FDA from a procedural standpoint, and that it is now up to Congress to clarify whether or not mifepristone should still be available. They could uphold the injunction without having to rule further on the legality of abortion.

    That being said, tucked into the Texas ruling is another brand new right: personhood for embryos. It wouldn’t surprise me if at least three or four of the reactionary supermajority on SCOTUS doesn’t want to run with that ball and make it the law of the land.

    At some point, the legacy of Trump’s judges will have to be confronted. Biden is clearly reluctant to do so, but they are trying really hard to force his hand. I have little confidence that he is up to the challenge. The voters seem to be, but if the leaders they elect won’t fight, then we are in serious trouble.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2023
    Juliet316 and Rogue1-and-a-half like this.
  23. Rogue1-and-a-half

    Rogue1-and-a-half Manager Emeritus who is writing his masterpiece star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 2, 2000
    Well said.
     
    Juliet316 and Vaderize03 like this.
  24. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    I think Joe Biden's career shows he will try to stay near the center of what he perceives as Democratic Party voters. I agree he probably isn't thrilled about this. But if conservative judges push too far, they will stir enough outrage that Biden will be permissive of slapping back at them.
     
    Vaderize03 likes this.
  25. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    I hope you’re right, but the evidence to date suggests otherwise.