Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

I don't know about stillborn, but abortion is simply the termination of a pregnancy, regardless of the condition of the fetus. That has led to horrific situations where a fetal abnormality was detected early but abortion is not allowed. The outcome is the fetus suffering (if it is capable of suffering; even if not, the woman who believes it can suffers greatly) until the pregnancy naturally ends (which also puts the woman at risk), or even worse, the fetus fully develops, the mother gives birth to the baby, only to witness the baby suffer until death. The latter case is also a case of states enabling child abuse or the Supreme Court enabling child abuse. These situations are not hypothetical. There are real cases where this has happened.



"Her due date was in May, but Casiano went into labor in March. She delivered her baby, then watched her slowly die: She was “gasping for air” and turning from pink to red to purple. Her eyeballs started bleeding. “I watched my baby suffer for four hours,” Casiano sobbed. “I told her, I am so sorry I couldn’t release you to heaven sooner. … There was no mercy for her.”

 

Be care careful what you ask for …

When Emory University researcher Ariana Traub surveyed almost 500 third- and fourth-year medical students in 2022, close to 80% said that abortion laws influenced where they planned to apply to residency. Nearly 60% said they were unlikely to apply to any residency programs in states with abortion restrictions. Traub had assumed that abortion would be most important to students studying obstetrics, but was surprised to find that three-quarters of students across all medical specialties said that Dobbs was affecting their residency decisions.​

She Wasn't Able to Get an Abortion. Now She's a Mom. Soon She'll Start 7th Grade.

 

Noted that in the debate Tim Scott said that can't leave abortion to states like CA and NY so need a national abortion restriction at least 15 weeks. I think Pence had a similar position. Haley and DeSantis said it should be left to the states.

 

Blah blah blah.

Every USSC judge that a R POTUS will nominate will go after abortion. That's the question one needs to ask.

 

Pro Life SCWs are so NIMBY

https://www.tiktok.com/@waltermasterson/video/7267979158175681822

 

By "at least" I assume they mean "at most" 15 weeks.

I don't think there should be a national law. We don't have a national law on murder (except where it falls outside of any state's jurisdiction). That is the states' remit. But at the state level, I can entertain a gestation limit. I think it should be "at least" 15 weeks, meaning some number higher than 15. I'm feeling 24, but there can be some compromise in 15-24. Putting the number at 6 is crazy to me. When you miss your period, you're already at 4, give or take.

 

I agree, 15 is a good starting point and I could live with that even though I would prefer 24 or 15 with quite a bit of lee way...............BUT, I am not a woman, this is just some man's opinion. It really should be up to the women

 

Yes. I think Scott meant to say 15 weeks would be the ceiling for a national abortion law. From what I gathered of his comments he believes that number is most politically feasible.

 

Maybe next time round, 12 weeks will be most politically feasible. The time after that ...

The Rs are just doing what they can get away with. Their end goal is no legal abortions.

 

Just to show how stupid this debate is, I live in Canada which has no legal limit on abortion. Yet no physician here will perform an abortion after 24 weeks. The guidelines that physicians imposed on themselves has a formal limit on abortions without the need for government regulation.

 

Nice to see a society that trust their physicians.

Practically, there is very little leeway with these cutoff numbers. In states where physicians can face jail time for performing an abortion to save a woman if the state deems it was not necessary to save the life of a woman, no pregnant woman is safe from the hand of big government.

 

Republicans are all for Federalism except when they’re not.

 

They simply value their own set of principles, which do not include ideals like free speech, individual rights, federalism, or democracy – or anything that gives uniform rights to all people. These are just a few key traditional values. It’s weird that they are still labeled as Conservatives. Unless ‘conservative’ always meant ‘my right, but not yours’

 

There are conservative principles that used to resonate with the Republican party. Now, it's the MAGA base driving the bus. Some think they need to kick MAGA out, others try to capture it from Trump. Most are too afraid to challenge MAGA, because they're so active in primaries.

 

Early looks at the impact on LEGAL abortion bans Roe was overturned show that addressing the causes of unwanted pregnancies is a much better and more direct strategy for reducing abortion. This approach also has the huge advantage of not taking away rights from women and risking harm to 50% of the population and all families.

ps. does not account for illegal abortion

Abortions Rose in Most States This Year, New Data Shows



Legal abortions most likely increased in the United States in the first six months of the year compared with 2020, an analysis of new estimates shows, as states with more permissive abortion laws absorbed patients traveling from those with bans and access to abortion pills via telemedicine continued to expand.

New research from the Guttmacher Institute offers the latest view of legal abortions since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision last year upended access to abortion nationwide and allowed more than a dozen states to ban or restrict the procedure.

The data suggests that thousands of women have crossed state lines to obtain an abortion, in the face of restrictions at home. It also indicates a rise in abortions among those living in states where the procedure is legal.

 

Not even close to what the 2019 ethics paper on “reconsidering fetal pain” referenced said.

“The two authors came together to write this paper through a shared sense that the neuroscientific data, especially more recent data, could not support a categorical rejection of fetal pain. We also both grew increasingly dissatisfied with the rejection of fetal pain based on a definition of pain that is useful when dealing with patients presenting with pain, but not appropriate to considering the kind of pain a fetus might plausibly experience. We hope that this short report can provide the basis for further consideration of how neuroscientific findings relate to phenomenological experience, further discussion of the nature of phenomenological experience in human adults and those with lesser conceptual capacity, and point towards a reasoned approach to pain relief even when the pain experienced cannot be explicitly expressed or measured. “

 

At his point @Commodore is only posting about 25% of things that are actual reality.

 

Sincerely,