Creeping Theocracy: Reproductive Rights in America

Jump to latest Follow Reply
U

U-99

Guest
  • #1
    This seems like a useful inflection point to discuss the future of abortion in America. Garland's garrotting and Ginsburg's lack of guile has left America with a 6-3 conservative-leaning Supreme Court, leaving Roe exceedingly vulnerable. This SCOTUS has also condoned state-level restrictions on abortion that make it functionally more and more difficult to dispense the procedure - often to the point of impossibility.

    Politico has a writeup that summarizes two current fronts in the abortion culture war:

    A ruling for Mississippi, which is petitioning for the right to ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, would allow states to implement restrictions farther-reaching than any seen in decades, abortion-rights advocates say. Texas, Idaho, Oklahoma and South Carolina moved this year to ban abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, with similar limits pending in several other Republican-led states.
    Click to expand...

    The FDA decision to allow patients to receive the pills via telemedicine or through the mail during the pandemic has galvanized both sides of the abortion wars. Anti-abortion activists — having lost influence in Washington following the 2020 election — have intensified lobbying right-leaning state legislatures to curb, if not outlaw, access to the pills, concerned that widespread access to the drug will render other abortion restrictions obsolete.

    “In our view, this is Roe 2.0 — a radical expansion of abortion,” said Kristi Hamrick, the spokesperson for Students for Life of America, which is lobbying in more than a dozen states to restrict use of the pills. “We’re talking to our friends on Capitol Hill, but it’s clear the pathway for legislation is just more sound at the state level right now.”

    Lacking the votes to hold against the avalanche of legislation, abortion rights supporters are transporting their fight to the courts and to federal agencies — both suing to block state bans and petitioning federal judges and the FDA to permanently lift the restrictions on the pills.

    The legal fight over the pills may ultimately return to the Supreme Court, whose conservative majority in January lifted an injunction that was preventing the FDA under former President Donald Trump from enforcing the in-person dispensing rule for the pills during the pandemic. Another factor is Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in the last major abortion case before the justices that courts shouldn’t concern themselves with whether a challenged abortion restriction is medically necessary. That view could undermine progressives’ argument that the pills are safe whether handed over by a doctor, picked up at a pharmacy or delivered by mail.
    Click to expand...

    If state-level access to abortion is functionally ended, what will that mean for the future of American politics and demographics?
     
    • Like
    Reactions: shelbystripes
    LTParis

    LTParis

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    22,689
    Subscriptor
  • #2
    U-99 said:
    If state-level access to abortion is functionally ended, what will that mean for the future of American politics and demographics?
    Click to expand...

    My guess is it energizes the left and while it will likely take 20 years or so that there may be a larger shift to the left given the general overall acceptance of choice and women's rights. On one side is one that wants to control women, ban access to safe medical choices, et al. The sad part is it will take a long time, and the GOP will do everything to stunt it all.
     
    U

    U-99

    Guest
  • #5
    ramases said:
    It would remove one of the cornerstones of the GOP/evangelical alliance, and use one of the GOPs most useful weapons in the culture wars. Successfully repealing Roe vs. Wade would not only energize the left, it would also reduce the religious right's internal cohesiveness.
    Click to expand...
    Abortion itself was a manufactured wedge issue to remedy segregation falling out of favor as the GOP culture war instigator of choice. If abortion is crushed, we will suddenly find the GOP base whipped up into a fervor over transgender Americans, policing, or something even more awful.

    Also, abortion would still be a bogeyman, as even the local Democratic candidate for dogcatcher would be portrayed as the spearhead of a push to "bring back the baby-killing."
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Skiff
    ramases

    ramases

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    7,569
    Subscriptor++
  • #6
    U-99 said:
    ramases said:
    It would remove one of the cornerstones of the GOP/evangelical alliance, and use one of the GOPs most useful weapons in the culture wars. Successfully repealing Roe vs. Wade would not only energize the left, it would also reduce the religious right's internal cohesiveness.
    Click to expand...
    Abortion itself was a manufactured wedge issue to remedy segregation falling out of favor as the GOP culture war instigator of choice. If abortion is crushed, we will suddenly find the GOP base whipped up into a fervor over transgender Americans, policing, or something even more awful.
    Click to expand...

    This is true -- but incomplete. Before abortion was sucessfully discovered as an effective wedge issue, there were many other failed attempts to replace segregation. In other words there is no guarantee that a replacement could be found quickly or easily, and that it would be as effective.
     
    U

    U-99

    Guest
  • #7
    ramases said:
    U-99 said:
    ramases said:
    It would remove one of the cornerstones of the GOP/evangelical alliance, and use one of the GOPs most useful weapons in the culture wars. Successfully repealing Roe vs. Wade would not only energize the left, it would also reduce the religious right's internal cohesiveness.
    Click to expand...
    Abortion itself was a manufactured wedge issue to remedy segregation falling out of favor as the GOP culture war instigator of choice. If abortion is crushed, we will suddenly find the GOP base whipped up into a fervor over transgender Americans, policing, or something even more awful.
    Click to expand...

    This is true -- but incomplete. Before abortion was sucessfully discovered as an effective wedge issue, there were many other failed attempts to replace segregation. In other words there is no guarantee that a replacement could be found quickly or easily, and that it would be as effective.
    Click to expand...
    That's fair, but don't expect the Trumpian GOP to demonstrate restraint on the issue.
     
    S

    Starbuck79

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    29,291
  • #8
    I don't think that Roe will ever be formally overturned BUT we will see the "undue burden" protections from Planned Parenthood v. Casey gutted allowing individual states to all make Abortion access so restrictive it's a de facto ban.

    In a recent Abortion rights case Roberts voted with the liberal majority to uphold protections only because the state restrictions were exactly the same as a previous decision. He said that he would be willing to take another look at the Casey standard with different set of restructions.
     
    F

    FreeRadical*

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    17,572
    Subscriptor
  • #9
    f state-level access to abortion is functionally ended, what will that mean for the future of American politics and demographics?
    Click to expand...
    It would lead to the Balkanization of reproductive rights like Illinois and Missouri. The Federal government is all for State Rights until the anti-abortionist are in control and people start crossing State borders for easier, less intrusive access to reproductive care including birth control and abortion.

    Check out sites like Focus on the Family. There isn't much focus on the family, but a lot of focus on fund raising and religion. In contrast Planned Parenthood is about Planned Parenthood including outreach to teen on making good decisions about sex. When I was there I had a tough time finding information about clinics that would help should you decide to carry a child to term which is what they say is their central advocacy. A lot of information about therapist who advocate "pro-life", but not much about find support to successfully carry a child to term.

    The Supreme Court has demonstrated that most of the Justices are exactly what they warned us about liberal justices, dedicated to ideology and not to the interpretation of the Constitution from a legal perspective. It amazes me how often the conservatives do what they fearmonger about the liberals doing once they get power. I go from believing neither conservative nor liberal engage in the tactics conservatives warn against to "holy shit, these conservatives are doing exactly what they said their opposition would do".
     
    S

    Soriak

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    11,745
    Subscriptor
  • #10
    FreeRadical* said:
    The Supreme Court has demonstrated that most of the Justices are exactly what they warned us about liberal justices, dedicated to ideology and not to the interpretation of the Constitution from a legal perspective.
    Click to expand...
    Roe v. Wade was decided on the due process clause of the 5th amendment:

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
    Click to expand...

    I'm very much pro-abortion, but it's a huge stretch to argue that a law passed by the elected state legislature somehow deprives someone of life or liberty without due process of law. The FDA isn't unconstitutional because it prevents people from accessing experimental drugs, even though people with terminal conditions do end up dead as a result. There's an argument that the state has a legitimate interest in regulating access to medical procedures. I don't think that's legitimate in the case of abortions, but that's obviously a policy position -- not a legal position.

    The Supreme Court doesn't exist to pass policies that elected officials can't pass at the state or federal level. After all, the Hyde amendment is still the law of the land, prohibiting the use of any federal funding to pay for abortions. I think the US is also fairly unique in the Western world in that you have to go to "abortion clinics" to get an abortion, rather than a hospital where you'd get other in-patient procedures. So even blue states could be doing a lot more here.

    I also remember my (liberal, non-religious) university explicitly excluding elective abortions from its health insurance plan. Student groups mobilized to protect access to abortion in other states, but not on their own campus.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Folly Cull
    Happysin

    Happysin

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    98,681
    Subscriptor++
  • #11
    If this fight is well and truly lost, I hope at least one of the liberal justices play some intellectual chicken and write a secondary affirming opinion saying Roe was misjudged because the 14th Amendment does provide for absolute protection, and there never should have been a need for balancing test for state laws, as they should all be illegal on their face. Basically, call them on it, saying "you're right, this shouldn't stand because it didn't go far enough".

    But I do know this better be a clarion call to take the Equal Rights Amendment back up. If that has to become the work of our generation, so be it.
     
    bluloo

    bluloo

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    33,075
    Subscriptor++
  • #13
    U-99 said:
    ... If abortion is crushed, we will suddenly find the GOP base whipped up into a fervor over transgender Americans, policing, or something even more awful...
    Click to expand...

    While this isn't unreasonable speculation, I don't agree that similar success in those areas are a certainty. It's not because they wouldn't attempt it, and while those issues are certainly effective wedge issues for the Pols, given the rising acceptance for LGBTQ rights/marriage equality, and increasing recognition of the need for police reform, I don't see them as having the same long-term, unifying potential that the abortion issue provided.

    I'd guess the next propagandist wedge issue, assuming abortion were effectively dead for the near-term, would be something that could be tied to sacrilege. The strength with which the purported sacrilege of abortion resonates with social conservatives is a significant element in the success of the movement, and for it's widespread, continued appeal. It provided in-group cohesion while portraying the out-group as murderous, baby-killers.

    While they already have a basic roadmap for replicating the process, for example, they tried sacrilizing "traditional marriage" as a political issue, and it didn't have the same long-term appeal.

    So, while I don't yet think abortion rights are as good as dead - as a thought experiment for what might come next, we might ask what else might social conservatives be convinced to hold most sacred?
     
    S

    Soriak

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    11,745
    Subscriptor
  • #14
    U-99 said:
    The Supreme Court doesn't exist to pass policies that elected officials can't pass at the state or federal level.
    Click to expand...
    Functionally, this is not true. We have a rich history of SCOTUS interpreting the constitution to amend or create policy outside of the legislative process.
    Click to expand...
    Yeah, and it's a problem. Separation of powers is real and necessary. Sure, presumably everyone here is in favor of SCOTUS protecting the right to an abortion... but would likely be less enthusiastic if SCOTUS would have struck down California's car emission standards or the Affordable Care Act.

    Sometimes, obviously, laws do need to be struck down because they are blatantly unconstitutional. Lots of restrictions of speech are pretty obvious examples. But on close calls, I think SCOTUS needs to defer to people who were elected to make those decisions. Even if I don't like the decisions they make.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Folly Cull
    U

    U-99

    Guest
  • #15
    Soriak said:
    U-99 said:
    The Supreme Court doesn't exist to pass policies that elected officials can't pass at the state or federal level.
    Click to expand...
    Functionally, this is not true. We have a rich history of SCOTUS interpreting the constitution to amend or create policy outside of the legislative process.
    Click to expand...
    Yeah, and it's a problem. Separation of powers is real and necessary. Sure, presumably everyone here is in favor of SCOTUS protecting the right to an abortion... but would likely be less enthusiastic if SCOTUS would have struck down California's car emission standards or the Affordable Care Act.

    Sometimes, obviously, laws do need to be struck down because they are blatantly unconstitutional. Lots of restrictions of speech are pretty obvious examples. But on close calls, I think SCOTUS needs to defer to people who were elected to make those decisions. Even if I don't like the decisions they make.
    Click to expand...
    OK, let's restrict SCOTUS's mandate to "obvious examples" that we can all agree on across the political spectrum. Oh, such a thing literally cannot exist in our polarized political system? I guess SCOTUS discretion will be required.
     
    C

    Crolis

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    19,439
    Subscriptor
  • #16
    ramases said:
    It would remove one of the cornerstones of the GOP/evangelical alliance, and use one of the GOPs most useful weapons in the culture wars. Successfully repealing Roe vs. Wade would not only energize the left, it would also reduce the religious right's internal cohesiveness.
    Click to expand...

    While it will likely energize the left, if the gun control debate has taught us anything, fear that the evil liberals will usher back in the baby killing will be an even more effective tool than the quest to ban abortion.
     
    S

    Soriak

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    11,745
    Subscriptor
  • #17
    U-99 said:
    OK, let's restrict SCOTUS's mandate to "obvious examples" that we can all agree on across the political spectrum. Oh, such a thing literally cannot exist in our polarized political system? I guess SCOTUS discretion will be required.
    Click to expand...
    Look at the cases heard last October that have been decided: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2020/

    Out of the 12 cases decided, 8 were unanimous, 1 had a single dissenter, one had two dissenters, and only two were "close" at 5-3. Of course you sometimes end up with a single Justice making the difference -- that's unavoidable. But at that point, the question should be what the implications of the decision are.

    https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/03/divi ... -seizures/
    The case concerned an attempt by two New Mexico police officers to stop a car driven by Roxanne Torres. The officers, who were trying to execute an arrest warrant for another person, approached Torres and her parked car. When they attempted to speak with her, Torres began driving away. Claiming to fear for their safety, the officers shot at the car, injuring Torres, who then drove off. The question the justices resolved on Thursday was whether this unsuccessful effort to stop Torres was a “seizure.” The officers claimed that people are seized only when they are stopped, while Torres kept going. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreed, dismissing Torres’ civil rights claim against the officers for violating her Fourth Amendment rights.

    In a 5-3 opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the majority reversed, concluding that the officers seized Torres even though she subsequently fled. The outcome fits neatly into the closest precedent, the 1991 case California v. Hodari D. In that case, the court explained that “[t]he word ‘seizure’ readily bears the meaning of a laying on of hands or application of physical force to restrain movement, even when it is ultimately unsuccessful.” (Emphasis added.) Pointing to this and other language in that case, the chief justice notes in the Torres opinion that “[w]e largely covered this ground in California v. Hodari D.”
    Click to expand...

    This is a fairly narrow decision on a technical question. That's pretty different from throwing out a major piece of legislation that was passed by state or federally elected representatives. I don't recall people here taking a dispassionate stance when SCOTUS was deciding on the constitutionality of the ACA, for example. And that getting to appoint SCOTUS judges has become such a big deal is exactly why this is a problem: it just politicizes another branch that inherently isn't supposed to be political. (Thankfully, calls to pack the court seem to have died.)
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Folly Cull
    U

    U-99

    Guest
  • #18
    Soriak said:
    U-99 said:
    OK, let's restrict SCOTUS's mandate to "obvious examples" that we can all agree on across the political spectrum. Oh, such a thing literally cannot exist in our polarized political system? I guess SCOTUS discretion will be required.
    Click to expand...
    Look at the cases heard last October that have been decided: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2020/

    Out of the 12 cases decided, 8 were unanimous, 1 had a single dissenter, one had two dissenters, and only two were "close" at 5-3. Of course you sometimes end up with a single Justice making the difference -- that's unavoidable. But at that point, the question should be what the implications of the decision are.

    https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/03/divi ... -seizures/
    The case concerned an attempt by two New Mexico police officers to stop a car driven by Roxanne Torres. The officers, who were trying to execute an arrest warrant for another person, approached Torres and her parked car. When they attempted to speak with her, Torres began driving away. Claiming to fear for their safety, the officers shot at the car, injuring Torres, who then drove off. The question the justices resolved on Thursday was whether this unsuccessful effort to stop Torres was a “seizure.” The officers claimed that people are seized only when they are stopped, while Torres kept going. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreed, dismissing Torres’ civil rights claim against the officers for violating her Fourth Amendment rights.

    In a 5-3 opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the majority reversed, concluding that the officers seized Torres even though she subsequently fled. The outcome fits neatly into the closest precedent, the 1991 case California v. Hodari D. In that case, the court explained that “[t]he word ‘seizure’ readily bears the meaning of a laying on of hands or application of physical force to restrain movement, even when it is ultimately unsuccessful.” (Emphasis added.) Pointing to this and other language in that case, the chief justice notes in the Torres opinion that “[w]e largely covered this ground in California v. Hodari D.”
    Click to expand...

    This is a fairly narrow decision on a technical question. That's pretty different from throwing out a major piece of legislation that was passed by state or federally elected representatives. I don't recall people here taking a dispassionate stance when SCOTUS was deciding on the constitutionality of the ACA, for example.
    Click to expand...
    The litmus for SCOTUS power is not the proportion of cases that are unanimous but rather the existence of cases where the legislative or executive branches are overruled. As a thought exercise: If SCOTUS overturned Roe tomorrow and struck down the ACA but then ruled on 100 minor cases 9-0, would they have generally deferred to precedent and other branches or not?
     
    F

    flere-imsaho

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    9,531
    Subscriptor
  • #19
    Starbuck79 said:
    I don't think that Roe will ever be formally overturned BUT we will see the "undue burden" protections from Planned Parenthood v. Casey gutted allowing individual states to all make Abortion access so restrictive it's a de facto ban.
    Click to expand...

    Best of both worlds for the grifting religious right & the GOP. Abortion functionally outlawed, but can still fundraise/rile people up because Roe itself hasn't been overturned.
     
    Happysin

    Happysin

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    98,681
    Subscriptor++
  • #20
    Soriak said:
    U-99 said:
    The Supreme Court doesn't exist to pass policies that elected officials can't pass at the state or federal level.
    Click to expand...
    Functionally, this is not true. We have a rich history of SCOTUS interpreting the constitution to amend or create policy outside of the legislative process.
    Click to expand...
    Yeah, and it's a problem. Separation of powers is real and necessary. Sure, presumably everyone here is in favor of SCOTUS protecting the right to an abortion... but would likely be less enthusiastic if SCOTUS would have struck down California's car emission standards or the Affordable Care Act.

    Sometimes, obviously, laws do need to be struck down because they are blatantly unconstitutional. Lots of restrictions of speech are pretty obvious examples. But on close calls, I think SCOTUS needs to defer to people who were elected to make those decisions. Even if I don't like the decisions they make.
    Click to expand...

    Ok, but abortion isn't one of those. The problem with Roe isn't that there was a clear decision by the SCOTUS, but that they overwrought it with conditional tests when it should have been absolute under the 14th Amendment. If anything, the SCOTUS was too conservative in its ruling, on something that should have been a clear line.

    Hell, that's the thing that really concerns me about overturning RvW, is that it could utterly throw open the door for legislation that sticks the government smack dab in the middle of private medical decisions. This isn't just about a woman's right to choose, but how much, exactly, can the government interfere with medical decisions. It isn't impossible for us to see proposed legislation that bans things like tubal ligation banned because it prevents women from possibly getting pregnant after such a decision, for example.
     
    F

    FreeRadical*

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    17,572
    Subscriptor
  • #21
    I don't think that's legitimate in the case of abortions, but that's obviously a policy position -- not a legal position.
    Click to expand...
    I am not sure I understand. As you say we are not talking about experimental procedures but procedures on the level of kidney stones or perhaps a kidney transplant medically speaking. The risk to fertility due to improper or untrained procedures are much greater with more abortion bans as our maternal deaths. Abortion bans and the unregulated surgical procedures they create are a direct threat to life. How can unevenly targeted clinic building codes and hospital admitting privilege requirements be seen as simply policy decisions when they close down well run and safe clinics while leaving nursing homes and dialysis clinics exempt from such harassment legislation?
     
    S

    Soriak

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    11,745
    Subscriptor
  • #23
    FreeRadical* said:
    I don't think that's legitimate in the case of abortions, but that's obviously a policy position -- not a legal position.
    Click to expand...
    I am not sure I understand. As you say we are not talking about experimental procedures but procedures on the level of kidney stones or perhaps a kidney transplant medically speaking. The risk to fertility due to improper or untrained procedures are much greater with more abortion bans as our maternal deaths. Abortion bans and the unregulated surgical procedures they create are a direct threat to life. How can unevenly targeted clinic building codes and hospital admitting privilege requirements be seen as simply policy decisions when they close down well run and safe clinics while leaving nursing homes and dialysis clinics exempt from such harassment legislation?
    Click to expand...
    We know that shrooms are not chemically addicting and don't have adverse health effects -- and that they appear to be treatments for PTSD. Nonetheless, the state doesn't seem to run afoul of the constitution by outlawing them. Opioids are now so restricted, even terminally ill patients are often suffering because doctors don't want to prescribe them. We also know that prescription requirements are barriers that prevent people from accessing medical care -- and yet they persist with drugs for which there is no medical reasons for prescriptions (including birth control pills, but even something like an asthma inhaler). All of which is to say that withholding effective medical treatment from people doesn't seem to be inherently unconstitutional.

    U-99 said:
    The litmus for SCOTUS power is not the proportion of cases that are unanimous but rather the existence of cases where the legislative or executive branches are overruled.
    Click to expand...
    Yes, I completely agree. The (to me surprising) number of unanimous decisions merely meant to illustrate that SCOTUS isn't inherently polarized or partisan. In the majority of cases, there's apparently consensus on interpreting the constitution. Even in cases that made it to the SCOTUS docket.

    Happysin said:
    Hell, that's the thing that really concerns me about overturning RvW, is that it could utterly throw open the door for legislation that sticks the government smack dab in the middle of private medical decisions.
    Click to expand...
    Let me introduce you to the FDA. ;) The government is already in the middle of private medical decisions -- and not only in the US. Much of Europe, for example, has much stricter regulation around prenatal genetic screening or surrogacy. The government also gets in the middle of end-of-life care decisions, including assisted suicide (perhaps the most consequential, personal medical decision).

    Mind you, I'm not arguing that the government should ban or restrict abortions. I absolutely agree that it's a personal medical decision. It just doesn't strike me as any more a violation of the constitution than other regulations around medical care.
     
    Lt_Storm

    Lt_Storm

    Ars Praefectus
    16,294
    Subscriptor++
  • #24
    ramases said:
    This is true -- but incomplete. Before abortion was sucessfully discovered as an effective wedge issue, there were many other failed attempts to replace segregation. In other words there is no guarantee that a replacement could be found quickly or easily, and that it would be as effective.
    Click to expand...

    Didn't you notice? They are bringing back segregation as a wedge issue... They have just started calling it "critical race theory".
     
    U

    U-99

    Guest
  • #25
    Yes, I completely agree. The (to me surprising) number of unanimous decisions merely meant to illustrate that SCOTUS isn't inherently polarized or partisan. In the majority of cases, there's apparently consensus on interpreting the constitution. Even in cases that made it to the SCOTUS docket.
    Click to expand...
    SCOTUS is only partisan for partisan cases. Given recent fiery dissents and polarized rulings we can tell that the Court is indeed partisan, though I would not expect that to be expressed in cases that have little bearing on power or advantage.
     
    W

    WM314

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    1,862
    Subscriptor
  • #26
    flere-imsaho said:
    I've moved on from "can abortion stay legal at the federal level" to "is SCOTUS going to overrule blue states' abortion protections". The former fight is now lost for a generation.
    Click to expand...

    On this note, has there been any reputable analysis on whether a legal notion of granting personhood to fertilized zygotes has any realistic possibility of traction in a post Roe era? That's a reasonably obvious next step beyond overturning Roe that would offer a way to pre-empt blue state regulations / a continued unifying cause for the GOP. (It also would affect IVF, but that might be a feature...)

    I'm particularly concerned about that because from there, there is a fringe possibility that some birth control gets taken out along the way. Researchers have concluded in the past for both Plan B (free example article; technically a similar regimen, not the actual product sold in the US) and IUDs (non-free example review) that they work at least in part by inhibiting implantation of a fertilized zygote. To be clear, this is not the dominant view, but there is enough published scientific literature that it's not too much of a stretch to imagine the courts considering the evidence mixed. In turn, I have genuinely no idea how the courts will interpret perceived scientific ambiguity, and I could see both plan B and some/all IUDs getting knocked out on the grounds of "no risk is acceptable".
     
    P

    Psychophant

    Ars Praefectus
    4,657
  • #27
    Soriak said:
    U-99 said:
    The Supreme Court doesn't exist to pass policies that elected officials can't pass at the state or federal level.
    Click to expand...
    Functionally, this is not true. We have a rich history of SCOTUS interpreting the constitution to amend or create policy outside of the legislative process.
    Click to expand...
    Yeah, and it's a problem. Separation of powers is real and necessary. Sure, presumably everyone here is in favor of SCOTUS protecting the right to an abortion... but would likely be less enthusiastic if SCOTUS would have struck down California's car emission standards or the Affordable Care Act.

    Sometimes, obviously, laws do need to be struck down because they are blatantly unconstitutional. Lots of restrictions of speech are pretty obvious examples. But on close calls, I think SCOTUS needs to defer to people who were elected to make those decisions. Even if I don't like the decisions they make.
    Click to expand...
    Remember, California's CARB laws only pass muster because they were passed before the EPA regulated emissions. If they had come after they would have been struck down. Which is what I believe an actual correct use of the interstate commerce clause, given the nationwide market for automobiles.

    While not a fan of severely restricting abortion, on principle I think it is a state issue, especially if they are only criminalizing the doctor performing the procedure. States have always had the ability to regulate the medical profession.
     
    Lt_Storm

    Lt_Storm

    Ars Praefectus
    16,294
    Subscriptor++
  • #28
    WM314 said:
    flere-imsaho said:
    I've moved on from "can abortion stay legal at the federal level" to "is SCOTUS going to overrule blue states' abortion protections". The former fight is now lost for a generation.
    Click to expand...

    On this note, has there been any reputable analysis on whether a legal notion of granting personhood to fertilized zygotes has any realistic possibility of traction in a post Roe era? That's a reasonably obvious next step beyond overturning Roe that would offer a way to pre-empt blue state regulations / a continued unifying cause for the GOP. (It also would affect IVF, but that might be a feature...)

    I'm particularly concerned about that because from there, there is a fringe possibility that some birth control gets taken out along the way. Researchers have concluded in the past for both Plan B (free example article; technically a similar regimen, not the actual product sold in the US) and IUDs (non-free example review) that they work at least in part by inhibiting implantation of a fertilized zygote. To be clear, this is not the dominant view, but there is enough published scientific literature that it's not too much of a stretch to imagine the courts considering the evidence mixed. In turn, I have genuinely no idea how the courts will interpret perceived scientific ambiguity, and I could see both plan B and some/all IUDs getting knocked out on the grounds of "no risk is acceptable".
    Click to expand...

    Honestly, that is an even bigger can of worms than mentioned what with things like miscarriages....
     
    U

    U-99

    Guest
  • #29
    While not a fan of severely restricting abortion, on principle I think it is a state issue, especially if they are only criminalizing the doctor performing the procedure. States have always had the ability to regulate the medical profession.
    Click to expand...
    States have also traditionally been able to bless compelled marriage for sickeningly young minors, but that doesn't make it moral or something to condone.

    If the Feds are required to prevent horrible misery and harm, then they should do so.
     
    C

    Crackhead Johny

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    25,515
    Subscriptor
  • #30
    U-99 said:
    While not a fan of severely restricting abortion, on principle I think it is a state issue, especially if they are only criminalizing the doctor performing the procedure. States have always had the ability to regulate the medical profession.
    Click to expand...
    If the Feds are required to prevent horrible misery and harm, then they should do so.
    Click to expand...
    They try their best but sometime they fail and then the shareholders and major contributors suffer.

    We have an internet. banning abortion will then lead to more and more punitive penalties for abortion until it blows up in their face.
    If you can order drugs from "outside the US" right now you will be able to do it in the future. All you need to Plan B is to know someone or to just google where to buy.
    A little late for Plan B? Luckily there will be "less" deaths as people can google how to preform abortions.

    talk about "blow up in their face", the new TX religious law against abortion that allows you to sue anyone you think may have had an abortion is a weapon waiting to get used. Right now someone could target every female related to the politicians who voted for it and sue them as "they heard they got an abortion.". You can target family members too so the politicians themselves can be sued.

    They may want it so that only the daughters and mistresses of Republican politicians can get abortions but the internet is out there and if worst comes to worst, DIY is a thing.
     
    U

    U-99

    Guest
  • #31
    talk about "blow up in their face", the new TX religious law against abortion that allows you to sue anyone you think may have had an abortion is a weapon waiting to get used. Right now someone could target every female related to the politicians who voted for it and sue them as "they heard they got an abortion.". You can target family members too so the politicians themselves can be sued.
    Click to expand...
    If you think this will work with disproportionate power and resources - particularly as these bills can be amended - you're writing fan fiction. In Texas this will most likely result in legal retaliation and bad press.
     
    S

    Soriak

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    11,745
    Subscriptor
  • #32
    There's also a pill that induces an abortion up to 12 weeks of pregnancy (i.e. not Plan B). It's widely available in the US, but in the event that the sale would be outlawed in some states (no state has tried), it'd just be a matter of importing it from Mexico (which doesn't require prescriptions). I'm not sure to what extent states can ban FDA authorized drugs, since that obviously affects interstate commerce. (There was this whole nonsense with California and New York setting up their own advisory board for the COVID vaccines, because they didn't trust FDA authorization. But I guess that didn't delay anything long enough for anyone to sue and test the legality of that.)
     
    C

    Crackhead Johny

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    25,515
    Subscriptor
  • #33
    U-99 said:
    talk about "blow up in their face", the new TX religious law against abortion that allows you to sue anyone you think may have had an abortion is a weapon waiting to get used. Right now someone could target every female related to the politicians who voted for it and sue them as "they heard they got an abortion.". You can target family members too so the politicians themselves can be sued.
    Click to expand...
    If you think this will work with disproportionate power and resources - particularly as these bills can be amended - you're writing fan fiction. In Texas this will most likely result in legal retaliation and bad press.
    Click to expand...
    Depends on how you define "work" and what your end goal is.
    For me the news story that would ensue would be the goal. IANAL so I don't know if you can file against all of them, leak to the news and then drop the case after the stories run. Releasing the instructions to the internet on how to file said case could allow others to do the same, maybe create and EZ website to do so? Not sure where TX is with anti-SLAPP (could this be applied?).
    If you have no ethics making a website to file, that claims a portion of the reward, could be a profit vector for some law firm.
     
    Lt_Storm

    Lt_Storm

    Ars Praefectus
    16,294
    Subscriptor++
  • #34
    Soriak said:
    I'm not sure to what extent states can ban FDA authorized drugs, since that obviously affects interstate commerce. (There was this whole nonsense with California and New York setting up their own advisory board for the COVID vaccines, because they didn't trust FDA authorization. But I guess that didn't delay anything long enough for anyone to sue and test the legality of that.)
    Click to expand...

    How short a memory we have. You might recall that the concern was that, sometime in October, Trump would tell the FDA to approve an untested vaccine (or maybe declare bleach injections to be a vaccine) in hopes that it would approve his electoral results. Fortunately, he didn't* so the entire concern was moot, but are you honestly trying to claim that Trump wouldn't try something like that if he could manage it?

    * Maybe some underling managed to convince him it was a bad idea, maybe the FDA told him to go screw himself, or maybe the fact that California and New York weren't going to go along quietly convinced him not to.
     
    Ecmaster76

    Ecmaster76

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    14,674
    Subscriptor
  • #35
    You might recall that the concern was that, sometime in October, Trump would tell the FDA to approve an untested vaccine in hopes that it would approve his electoral results.
    Click to expand...

    I see something about AstraZeneca approval based on their UK results that were good enough for UK approval
    viewtopic.php?p=39173796#p39173796
    My memory is hazy but I think the CA/NY not trusting FDA approval stuff was perhaps even before those reports came out

    The trial results for Pfizer were out about a week and a half after the election
     
    Happysin

    Happysin

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    98,681
    Subscriptor++
  • #36
    Lt_Storm said:
    Soriak said:
    I'm not sure to what extent states can ban FDA authorized drugs, since that obviously affects interstate commerce. (There was this whole nonsense with California and New York setting up their own advisory board for the COVID vaccines, because they didn't trust FDA authorization. But I guess that didn't delay anything long enough for anyone to sue and test the legality of that.)
    Click to expand...

    How short a memory we have. You might recall that the concern was that, sometime in October, Trump would tell the FDA to approve an untested vaccine (or maybe declare bleach injections to be a vaccine) in hopes that it would approve his electoral results. Fortunately, he didn't* so the entire concern was moot, but are you honestly trying to claim that Trump wouldn't try something like that if he could manage it?

    * Maybe some underling managed to convince him it was a bad idea, maybe the FDA told him to go screw himself, or maybe the fact that California and New York weren't going to go along quietly convinced him not to.
    Click to expand...

    I mean, Trump quite literally publicly demanded that the FDA move faster and threatened jobs over it. Fortunately, it appears that they didn't know how to actually force the issue.
     
    S

    Soriak

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    11,745
    Subscriptor
  • #37
    Lt_Storm said:
    How short a memory we have. You might recall that the concern was that, sometime in October, Trump would tell the FDA to approve an untested vaccine (or maybe declare bleach injections to be a vaccine) in hopes that it would approve his electoral results. Fortunately, he didn't* so the entire concern was moot, but are you honestly trying to claim that Trump wouldn't try something like that if he could manage it?
    Click to expand...
    It's not like people would have been forced to get the vaccine. Given the interim trial results, I'd absolutely have been willing to be vaccinated with Pfizer or Moderna back in October. And if old people had been given that opportunity, thousands of them might still be alive today. Which is to say, it's apparently perfectly constitutional for the government to withhold life-saving medical treatment from people who are willing to get it.

    In fact, that states are able to prioritize by age group or by ZIP code is a pretty strong precedent that they can withhold vaccines from people who have since died as a result of that decision.
     
    S

    Soriak

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    11,745
    Subscriptor
  • #39
    flere-imsaho said:
    So, is that a "yes", in response to Lt_Storm's question? I'm confused.
    Click to expand...
    You mean (at least) two Blue states either bought into a conspiracy theory or as a PR stunt set up "commissions" that, in theory, could have banned FDA authorized vaccines from being administered in their states? That's the closest I could think of where states would have tried to block an FDA authorized drug, and it didn't lead to litigation because they didn't end up delaying anything.

    Could the FDA authorize drugs for political reasons? Sure. I don't see how this relates to whether it's constitutional for states to overrule that decision.

    The context here is that there are FDA authorized drugs that induce an abortion during the first trimester. If a state wanted to outright ban abortion, they'd have to ban the sale of those drugs.
     
    Defenestrar

    Defenestrar

    Senator
    13,345
    Subscriptor++
  • #40
    The whole series of court precedents, federal laws, and state laws are a mess. The part that particularly bothers me is the inconsistencies in between federal legal perspectives (and ~80% of states too) which view the fetus as a person under certain circumstances1 and not others (like abortion). Roe v. Wade made part of the decision based on the 9th and 14th Amendments that women have a right to privacy limited by the balance of the state's two interests in protecting the health of the mother and the life of the fetus. However, the court punted with respect to when the fetus became "alive" and went with the trimester approach (although they had a great quote about doctors and philosophers still not agreeing on when that happened). Later on the courts moved to the "viability" test (PP v. Casey, I think?), but I think that's fundamentally flawed as a moving target. Medical technology has pushed that date back weeks (or months even) over the last thirty years and I think we'll eventually see the limit of what's medically possible pushed to the point of gamete fusion - so that's just another type of punt that technology is eventually going to erode.

    So if a fetus is a person2 under some laws - thus obtaining the 14th's equal protection to life, liberty, property etc... (otherwise the prosecutors wouldn't have the right to represent in cases of feticide/double homicide (i.e. mother/fetus)) then why isn't it a person under other laws? I get that it's a hard question - and why SCOTUS has attempted to revise the test case (trimesters to viability, etc...) but I think the double standard is hypocritical. We shouldn't be able to add a second count of homicide to one person for the taking of a life while turning around and saying that the right to privacy makes it acceptable in another area.

    From one perspective this mess of laws could be interpreted that abortion is a type of secret murder that the government will never be allowed to know about through the prospective-mother's right to privacy. A case where the perpetrator is always good enough at hiding the evidence the cops can never justify a warrant, as it were (4th Amendment). I know that's not what this really is, but it kind of feels like it. Why don't our laws make internal sense?

    I also bet my thoughts are really unpopular.

    1 e.g. domestic violence, see the Peterson case (double homicide conviction under Ca law), and resulting federal law (most of the states have similar laws as the federal one).
    2 like men or women of any color, creed, etc... and even corporations for that matter
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Folly Cull
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Jump to latest Follow Reply
    Jump to latest Follow Reply