Abortion Repeal?

Gunz

Combined Action
Verified Military
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
7,764
Once I had it explained to me in detail, I decided RBG was right, in my opinion. Roe was sloppy case law.

Had the case been presented under the equal protection clause of 14A, it would have been much harder to overturn. While it mentioned Palko v. Connecticut, and cited two cases that passed the Palko test, Roe itself did not attach itself to a specific amendment the way Stanley v. Georgia linked to 1A or Katz v. United States linked to the 4th. Nor did Roe prove long standing tradition that is fundamental to our society, such as the right to marry (Maynard v. Hill in 1888). Tradition would have nuked Roe, since abortion has historically been frowned upon by many cultures.

Loving v. Virginia was passed under equal protection, not due process/right to privacy. While Maynard established the right to marry as an unenumerated right, Loving demonstrated that the right should be applied equally, rendering VA’s prohibition of interracial marriage unconstitutional.

Had the lawyers arguing in favor of RvW presented the argument that since men can’t get pregnant and are not at risk of dying from pregnancy related complications, but women certainly can and are, it may have gone differently. It would have been a much more solid argument. The treatment of ectopic pregnancies or spontaneous abortions (medical term for miscarriage) that don’t completely pass on their own would be protected by constitutional law if it had been argued that way.

I’d like to think that RBG was waiting for a litigant to come along that actually gave a damn equal protection, but that’s a stretch.

I didn’t understand a word of this…but I agree with all of it.
 

Cookie_

SOF Support
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
1,013
Controversial/uncontroversial opinion.


This is all Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s fault.
I've seen this along with the take that "If Bernie dropped out after Iowa Hillary would have won/Bernie bros caused this."

I think both of these statements are missing the throughline; the mainstream, Neoliberal wing of the Democratic party is dogshit at political maneuvering. Dems had 50 years to pass federal protections; during that time they had super majorities at least twice (Clinton's/Obama's first few years.)

They easily could have passed a 20 week(or whatever timeframe) bill.

Loving v. Virginia was passed under equal protection, not due process/right to privacy. While Maynard established the right to marry as an unenumerated right, Loving demonstrated that the right should be applied equally, rendering VA’s prohibition of interracial marriage unconstitutional.

Loving did play a role in expanding due process. The opinion held that the marriage was a "basic civil right" and denying that on the basis of race violated due process.

Both the equal protection and due process sections of Loving were used in Obergefell.
 

RackMaster

Nasty-Dirty-Canuck
SOF Support
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
10,719
Location
Land of Swine and Maple Syrup
The Democrat's, just like the Liberal's in Canada; never did the hard work because it's the perfect wedge.
Painting the right as misogynist, racist, homophobic, blah, blah, blah; oh, my favorite recent one is religious extremist. Is purposely meant to divide the right, ferment the hate for the right and increase the % of swing votes.
I think they realized it's easier to expand their base through hatred, than it is to actually compromise and make every one happy.
 

Blizzard

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
2,319
"Women are going to die, it has already started."
But she lived.

It's really a silly game to play. I suppose the other side of the coin could also be played as well - children born that otherwise wouldn't have; thus lives saved and given opportunity.

The past few days have nothing but a trigger point for free flow of emotion and unintelligent rants from all angles.

Just my $.02
 

TLDR20

Verified SOF
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,591
"Women are going to die, it has already started."
But she lived.

It's really a silly game to play. I suppose the other side of the coin could also be played as well - children born that otherwise wouldn't have; thus lives saved and given opportunity.

The past few days have nothing but a trigger point for free flow of emotion and unintelligent rants from all angles.

Just my $.02

One story in a country of 330 million. It isn’t one in 330 million chance.
 

R.Caerbannog

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
1,537
"Women are going to die, it has already started."
But she lived.

It's really a silly game to play. I suppose the other side of the coin could also be played as well - children born that otherwise wouldn't have; thus lives saved and given opportunity.

The past few days have nothing but a trigger point for free flow of emotion and unintelligent rants from all angles.

Just my $.02
That's an interesting thought.

Anyone have an idea of the number of abortions preformed in the past... let's say 20 years?

Add on: Reason I'm curious, is that China is facing a demographic collapse because they aborted a lot of their females. Makes me wonder what the population effects of R v Wade has been here in the US.
 

Blizzard

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
2,319
That's an interesting thought.

Anyone have an idea of the number of abortions preformed in the past... let's say 20 years?

Add on: Reason I'm curious, is that China is facing a demographic collapse because they aborted a lot of their females. Makes me wonder what the population effects of R v Wade has been here in the US.
A quick Google search of CDC stats shows the rate between 2010 and 2019 declined from 14.6 to 11.4; actual numbers 765K annually down to 630K.

Also of interest, despite sensationalism from some, abortion related deaths for pregnant women has always been relatively rare. In 1973, there were 47 deaths. Keep in mind there's currently ~64M women of childbearing age in the U.S. Here are current stats:
Deaths from abortions U.S. 1973-2018 | Statista
 

Blizzard

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
2,319
Would love for that person to show their face and name. If it's true, that's probably not the purpose of the law in that specific state. Perhaps the doctors should read the statute and make sure their paperwork is perfect.
Yeah, until proven otherwise, I call bullshit on that supposed story given that I've seen it from multiple sources, including some high school kids.
 

R.Caerbannog

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
1,537
A quick Google search of CDC stats shows the rate between 2010 and 2019 declined from 14.6 to 11.4; actual numbers 765K annually down to 630K.

Also of interest, despite sensationalism from some, abortion related deaths for pregnant women has always been relatively rare. In 1973, there were 47 deaths. Keep in mind there's currently ~64M women of childbearing age in the U.S. Here are current stats:
Deaths from abortions U.S. 1973-2018 | Statista
Interesting, thank you!

I checked out Statista and they had a chart with abortions in the US since 1973. The numbers are very interesting. I put the data in the spoiler below as it takes up a lot of space.

A rough calculation from 2019-1990 stands at 25,255,000 abortions and that's from the states that provided data to the CDC. I can only wonder what thh number is in places like California, etc.

Legal abortions number U.S. 1973-2019 | Statista
1656392058380.png

1656392127639.png

1656392193757.png

Even more interesting are the number of states whose numbers are not here.
" The following states did not report abortion data to CDC: California (2003–2019), Maryland (2007–2019), New Hampshire (2003–2019), Louisiana (2005), West Virginia (2003–2004). "

1656392284805.png
 

TLDR20

Verified SOF
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,591
Would love for that person to show their face and name. If it's true, that's probably not the purpose of the law in that specific state. Perhaps the doctors should read the statute and make sure their paperwork is perfect.

Well that person could get fired for showing a name and face as that could be construed as a violation of patient confidentiality. Hospitals are absurd with punishments for even perceived violations.

Go look at the Residency Reddit, and you can find numerous examples of physicians stating that this is happening.

It is fair to be cynical, but I do D and E’s all the time sometimes like 5 in a day. All of them are medically necessary, loss of viability, etc. I have also had the displeasure of being involved in a fetal demise birth. Forcing a woman to carry a fetal demise, or a non viable fetus CAN be more traumatic for the family than a go to sleep and wake up D and E. In my state, at least currently nothing changes. We will see how long that lasts.
 

RackMaster

Nasty-Dirty-Canuck
SOF Support
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
10,719
Location
Land of Swine and Maple Syrup
Well that person could get fired for showing a name and face as that could be construed as a violation of patient confidentiality. Hospitals are absurd with punishments for even perceived violations.

Go look at the Residency Reddit, and you can find numerous examples of physicians stating that this is happening.

It is fair to be cynical, but I do D and E’s all the time sometimes like 5 in a day. All of them are medically necessary, loss of viability, etc. I have also had the displeasure of being involved in a fetal demise birth. Forcing a woman to carry a fetal demise, or a non viable fetus CAN be more traumatic for the family than a go to sleep and wake up D and E. In my state, at least currently nothing changes. We will see how long that lasts.

Besides all the vocal displeasure with this decision, have you heard of any States doing anything to codify anything in law? Even if it's just to permit medical necessary procedures?
 

TLDR20

Verified SOF
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,591

TLDR20

Verified SOF
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,591
Most statutes allow for medical emergencies, even the most restrictive ones.

Medical emergencies to death of the mother. There are cases where a fetal demise, or unviable fetus are not emergencies, but could become them in such a rapid fashion as to cause death of the mother.
 

TLDR20

Verified SOF
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,591
A quick Google search of CDC stats shows the rate between 2010 and 2019 declined from 14.6 to 11.4; actual numbers 765K annually down to 630K.

Also of interest, despite sensationalism from some, abortion related deaths for pregnant women has always been relatively rare. In 1973, there were 47 deaths. Keep in mind there's currently ~64M women of childbearing age in the U.S. Here are current stats:
Deaths from abortions U.S. 1973-2018 | Statista

Yeah medically performed abortions are very safe. That is a great point.
 
Top