Page 165 of 178 FirstFirst ... 65115155160161162163164165166167168169170175 ... LastLast
Results 3,281 to 3,300 of 3550

Thread: Pro Life / Pro Choice Debate

  1. #3281
    Same dance as junebug or jh playing dumb about CRT laws regarding the language of the laws vs. the outcomes.

  2. #3282
    Quote Originally Posted by BeachBumDeac View Post

    You can bury your head in the sand and keep voting GOP with your both sides and quick google search bullshit. But you are supporting some real heinous shit.
    Sure but he's well past his baby-having years and if any daughters get in a real tight situation he can afford to fix it for them somehow. The laws may be heinous but, like, for other people that probably should have tried harder anyway so they'd have more options.

  3. #3283
    Quote Originally Posted by MHBDemon View Post
    Same dance as junebug or jh playing dumb about CRT laws regarding the language of the laws vs. the outcomes.
    Nah, Junebug definitely knew the laws, provided a strict construction narrative then denied that they would ever be applied one iota beyond a strict construction and used to intimidate teachers, like we all said they would be and then were. Junebug was not coming from a place of ignorance, it was disingenuousness.
    Birds are real.

  4. #3284
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    134,100
    History, the Supreme Court, and Dobbs v. Jackson: Joint Statement from the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians
    In September 2021, the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians submitted an amicus curiae brief to the US Supreme Court presenting the relevant history to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case. We are dismayed that the court declined to take seriously the historical claims of our brief. Instead, the court adopted a flawed interpretation of abortion criminalization that has been pressed by anti-abortion advocates for more than 30 years. The opinion inadequately represents the history of the common law, the significance of quickening in state law and practice in the United States, and the 19th-century forces that turned early abortion into a crime.
    Historians might note that the court’s majority opinion refers to “history” 67 times, claiming that “an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973.” Our brief shows plentiful evidence, however, of the long legal tradition, extending from the common law to the mid-1800s (and far longer in some American states, including Mississippi), of tolerating termination of pregnancy before occurrence of “quickening,” the time when a woman first felt fetal movement. The majority of the court dismisses that reality because it was eventually—although quite gradually—superseded by criminalization. In so doing the court denies the strong presence in US “history and traditions” at least from the Revolution to the Civil War of women’s ability to terminate pregnancy before the third to fourth month without intervention by the state.
    These misrepresentations are now enshrined in a text that becomes authoritative for legal reference and citation in the future. The court’s decision erodes fundamental rights and has the potential to exacerbate historic injustices and deepen inequalities in our country. We expect that historians will continue to correct the court’s misinterpretation about the history of legalized abortion in the US in their own research, teaching, and public speaking, while also addressing the multifaceted dilemmas presented by this decision.
    The OAH and AHA consider it imperative that historical evidence and argument be presented according to high standards of historical scholarship. The court’s majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson does not meet those standards and has therefore established a flawed and troubling precedent.

    https://www.historians.org/news-and-...ah-(july-2022)

  5. #3285
    I am not reading the discussion here since it is mostly just attacking me. I am researching the actual text of the laws in states where abortion either is, or is set to become, illegal or extremely limited. Actual text (versus commentary) is hard to find and it is difficult to tell sometimes what laws are in force versus under consideration.

    My focus is on determining whether abortion would be prohibited in the case of a miscarriage. I have already seen some laws that state the doctor cannot perform an abortion if the fetal heartbeat is detected. If that is how it is worded, it seems to me the abortion would be allowed since there would be no fetal heartbeat.
    But the language has to be parsed carefully - if it means the fetal heartbeat WAS EVER detected, then that is less clear.

    It seems to me that a simple fix to these laws for that situation would be to define abortion as the termination of a pregnancy involving a live fetus. One law I saw did include some definitions like that that could be helpful but I need to study it further.

  6. #3286
    I highlighted your words above and it is entirely about how you are right, everyone else is wrong, and you are looking for evidence that supports your hypothe.... <checks notes> feelings. Want to know why you feel attacked? Start with your posts about not wanting input that disagrees with you.

  7. #3287
    Quote Originally Posted by scooter84 View Post
    I am not reading the discussion here since it is mostly just attacking me.
    How do you know the discussion here is attacking you if you didn’t read it?

  8. #3288
    Most of us: Hey man, if you do t believe us try reading the actual laws!

    Scooter: Stop attacking me, I won’t read anything. Ignorance is bliss!
    Birds are real.

  9. #3289

  10. #3290
    Can someone provide the text of the law that links to? I prefer to read these for myself. Most people are wrong, dumb, or just made a mistake. They aren't usually evil.

  11. #3291
    How long after some asshole grants personhood until the legislature tries to compel women to immediately register with authorities when they find out they are pregnant? Otherwise, it's human smuggling, right?

  12. #3292
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    134,100
    Quote Originally Posted by deactherunner View Post
    How long after some asshole grants personhood until the legislature tries to compel women to immediately register with authorities when they find out they are pregnant? Otherwise, it's human smuggling, right?
    Seems like human trafficking is someone is carrying a person against their will. What if they plan to sell that human or as it’s also known putting the child up for adoption?

  13. #3293
    I found the text of HB 1456 - I believe this is the "trigger law" in North Dakota. It uses the following relevant language (I did not include most of the rest of the law):
    - Except when a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with this subsection, an
    individual may not perform an abortion on a pregnant woman before determining, in
    accordance with standard medical practice, if the unborn child the pregnant woman is carrying
    has a detectable heartbeat.

    - An individual is not in violation of subsection 1 if that individual has performed an examination
    for the presence of a heartbeat in the unborn child utilizing standard medical practice and that
    examination does not reveal a heartbeat in the unborn child or the individual has been
    informed by a physician who has performed the examination for the unborn child's heartbeat
    that the examination did not reveal a heartbeat in the unborn child.

    It seems to me that performing a D&C after a miscarriage would not be a problem under this statute? The doctor would determine that there was no fetal heartbeat and then perform the procedure? I don't know whether N.Dakota counts as one of the 23 states?

  14. #3294
    Who is responsible for determining if there is a heartbeat and what documentation would be acceptable to ensure doctors would not be worried about prosecution? (Because most doctors aren't going to perform a procedure if they're not pretty sure they won't be thrown in jail.)

    And does it worry you at all that the fetus is referred to as an "unborn child" in the language?

    Not to mention the fact that "heartbeat" is pretty sketchy language when referring to a fetus that does not yet have a developed heart?

    Do you not see multiple angles a prosecutor could take in going after someone who had a miscarriage? Or a doctor who performed a D&C after a miscarriage?

  15. #3295
    Quote Originally Posted by avalon View Post
    Who is responsible for determining if there is a heartbeat and what documentation would be acceptable to ensure doctors would not be worried about prosecution? (Because most doctors aren't going to perform a procedure if they're not pretty sure they won't be thrown in jail.)

    That is addressed in the parts of the law I did not include. A Dr. is required to use commonly accepted medical practice for determining whether there is a fetal heartbeat and has to document the tests performed. This should be pretty straightforward.

    And does it worry you at all that the fetus is referred to as an "unborn child" in the language?

    Why would that be worrisome?

    Not to mention the fact that "heartbeat" is pretty sketchy language when referring to a fetus that does not yet have a developed heart?

    If the heart has not developed yet then there would not be a heartbeat.

    Do you not see multiple angles a prosecutor could take in going after someone who had a miscarriage? Or a doctor who performed a D&C after a miscarriage?

    No I do not. Do you? Your first question makes no sense in the context of this law. If the miscarriage has stopped the beating heart then I am not sure what basis there would be to go after a doctor under this statute.
    It looks like this is going to be the case in most of the "heartbeat" laws - I looked at the Texas "heartbeat" law and it uses similar language.
    Any laws that intend to make any abortion illegal, even before heartbeat detection, may be more problematic. I will try to find the text of one of those and take a look.

  16. #3296
    Quote Originally Posted by scooter84 View Post
    It looks like this is going to be the case in most of the "heartbeat" laws - I looked at the Texas "heartbeat" law and it uses similar language.
    Any laws that intend to make any abortion illegal, even before heartbeat detection, may be more problematic. I will try to find the text of one of those and take a look.
    Quote Originally Posted by scooter84
    That is addressed in the parts of the law I did not include. A Dr. is required to use commonly accepted medical practice for determining whether there is a fetal heartbeat and has to document the tests performed. This should be pretty straightforward.
    That sounds vague. Anything that uses a term like "commonly accepted" leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by scooter84
    If the heart has not developed yet then there would not be a heartbeat.
    Most "heartbeat" laws refer to a time before there is a developed heart. The "heartbeat" language is political, not medical.

    Quote Originally Posted by scooter84
    No I do not. Do you? Your first question makes no sense in the context of this law. If the miscarriage has stopped the beating heart then I am not sure what basis there would be to go after a doctor under this statute.
    Yes. As I posted earlier, there are women in jail now for having a miscarriage. Prosecutors argued that the pregnant person caused the miscarriage.

  17. #3297
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    134,100
    A friend of mine in Utah wrote this review of how the Utah's trigger laws differ from the stated rhetoric below. She's a devout Mormon who works for the LDS church. She used to be ardent pro-life and is now pro-choice.

    I’ve reviewed Utah’s trigger law language. The language of the law seems to say all the right things - and the popular photo being shared this week appears the same. There are exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mom and severe fetal abnormalities. But what do the exceptions really involve?

    For rape and incest - a police report is required. Do you know how many rapes get reported to the police? Less than 1 out of 3. Many of those reports are made weeks or months after the crime. My daughter finally reported her rape almost a year afterward. It took her that long to feel like she could take action.

    Doctors in Utah are required to get a copy of the police report and verify the rape before medical care can be provided. Think about those implications for someone you love.

    Exceptions are offered for moms whose lives are in danger or babies with severe abnormalities. Again we find that the actual language is not that simple. Two separate doctors have to agree that the pregnancy is causing body systems to fail. My diagnosis of a failing liver came very late, in the last 24 hours of my third pregnancy with the problem, when it was almost too late. Add in the extenuating circumstances of being a military family with a move in between the pregnancies and a whole new set of doctors and I doubt my medical problems would have met the criteria in Utah.

    And my first pregnancy with suspected baby abnormalities would have to pass a filter of being fatal or severe enough to warrant termination, unlikely in my view based on current language.

    What good are exceptions if the hoops to jump through them makes them truly inaccessible to many or if the timeline involved makes them come too late?

    In my heart of hearts I believe that most mothers making a decision to terminate a pregnancy do so under the very worst circumstances of their lives. It’s a decision none of us want to have to make and yet it happens every day to some one.

    At the end of the day I believe I will be judged not only for the decisions I make but for how I treat people who make decisions I disagree with as well. I don’t believe I will be judged for the choices others make.

    Even in a circumstance I can’t fathom for myself, I can recognize the extreme isolation, trauma and pain that would lead someone to choose abortion. I can empathize and love even when I don’t agree. I think that’s the whole point of our life on earth - to learn to love like the Savior. To honor his great, eternal sacrifice that gives each of us the ability to CHOOSE for ourselves.


  18. #3298
    Not sure why scooter is finding it so difficult to find statutes, but here is Missouri’s trigger law - it is a complete ban, except in the case of a “medical emergency” and “medical emergency” isn’t defined. That is incredibly (I’d argue unconstitutionally) vague for a criminal statute, but if I’m a doctor in Missouri, there is almost no way I’d feel comfortable performing a D&C after a miscarriage. Especially since the burden of proof is on the doctor to show that there was a medical emergency. So scooter, please go ahead and tell us why a person who miscarries in Missouri shouldn’t be worried about having access to a D&C afterwards.

    188.017. Right to Life of the Unborn Child Act — limitation on abortions, when — affirmative defense — contingent effective date. — 1. This section shall be known and may be cited as the "Right to Life of the Unborn Child Act".
      2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no abortion shall be performed or induced upon a woman, except in cases of medical emergency. Any person who knowingly performs or induces an abortion of an unborn child in violation of this subsection shall be guilty of a class B felony, as well as subject to suspension or revocation of his or her professional license by his or her professional licensing board. A woman upon whom an abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subsection shall not be prosecuted for a conspiracy to violate the provisions of this subsection.
      3. It shall be an affirmative defense for any person alleged to have violated the provisions of subsection 2 of this section that the person performed or induced an abortion because of a medical emergency. The defendant shall have the burden of persuasion that the defense is more probably true than not.
      *4. The enactment of this section shall only become effective upon notification to the revisor of statutes by an opinion by the attorney general of Missouri, a proclamation by the governor of Missouri, or the adoption of a concurrent resolution by the Missouri general assembly that:
      (1) The United States Supreme Court has overruled, in whole or in part, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), restoring or granting to the state of Missouri the authority to regulate abortion to the extent set forth in this section, and that as a result, it is reasonably probable that this section would be upheld by the court as constitutional;
      (2) An amendment to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted that has the effect of restoring or granting to the state of Missouri the authority to regulate abortion to the extent set forth in this section; or
      (3) The United States Congress has enacted a law that has the effect of restoring or granting to the state of Missouri the authority to regulate abortion to the extent set forth in this section.

  19. #3299
    Too bad Scooter won’t read that because it’s an attack on him.
    Birds are real.

  20. #3300
    Quote Originally Posted by avalon View Post
    That sounds vague. Anything that uses a term like "commonly accepted" leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

    How would you suggest it be defined? All kinds of things in the medical field, like determining medical malpractice for instance, depend on commonly accepted practices, or, as it is often stated, the accepted "standard of care". You are not talking about rocket science here, you are simply determining whether there is a fetal heartbeat

    Most "heartbeat" laws refer to a time before there is a developed heart. The "heartbeat" language is political, not medical.

    I don't understand what you mean here? The heartbeat laws are defining the point in time when an abortion becomes illegal - and that is when the fetal heartbeat is detected - thus the heart has developed.

    Yes. As I posted earlier, there are women in jail now for having a miscarriage. Prosecutors argued that the pregnant person caused the miscarriage.

    My point was that has nothing to do with this law. I don't know the circumstances you are talking about but I assume those are cases where the mother is accused of causing the miscarriage by drug use or something? I don't know but I doubt they have been charged under an anti-abortion law - more like a child abuse or neglect law. I could see that in cases of a late term pregnancy where intentional or negligent behavior of the mother has caused the death of the baby.
    Last edited by scooter84; 07-08-2022 at 11:37 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •