A Handmaiden's Tale: coming to a town near you?

1. 78

   Credence2posted 8 months ago

   Its starting, I knew that the political Right could not resist the chance to take this abortion issue to insane limits. Do you really think that the trend will end with these Texas towns? I can understand the prohibition regarding minors, but these are grown women we are talking about now.....
   
   Your thoughts.....
   
   
   https://news.yahoo.com/highways-next-an … 16163.html

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Willowarborposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      No the trend will not end in Texas. Bodily autonomy and reproductive choice are not safe anywhere in this country.  The far right is determined to end abortion and they don't care who agrees with them. If they have their way, there will be no safe havens to travel to. They keep pushing the envelope with these efforts to restrict travel between states and even to ban medication abortions which would impact the entire country. 
      They will not stop until the Supreme Court declares a fertilized egg is deserving of protection under the 14th amendment.
      
      Republicans have argued that their goal was to return the issue of abortion to the states. At no point was this believable; since 1984, the Republican Party platform has called for a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
      
      These current outrageous moves are just
      the latest sign of the right’s disenchantment with democracy and its dream of imposing on the American people a regime that a majority of us will never consent to.
      
      The anti-abortion movement has always had authoritarian underpinnings; forcing women to give birth against their will would require police-state surveillance and coercion. All brought to us by the folks that regarded mask wearing as tyranny.
      
      Many experts say the fall of abortion rights is a key sign of a troubled democracy. Forced birth  denies women of having any agency over their present as well as their future.
      Isn't that  in itself anti-democratic? In democratic societies, we don’t say to people, ‘Well, because I don’t believe in this thing you can’t believe in it either". "Because I think this is the only way, everyone has to accept it’s the only way". It creates the question of who’s next? Who’s next to have rights stripped away from them?” The further we go down this Christian nationalist path, the more rights are going to be taken away.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

         Yes, so what have we here?
         
         An attempt to criminalize abortion nationwide will never happen and conservatives know it. Anything of this magnitude with require an amendment to the Constitution with 3/4 of the states on board. That will never happen, so the Right goes for the next best thing, working at the margins going for low hanging fruit.
         
         Conservatives initially said that all they wanted was for this issue to be handled individually at the state level.  Conservatives told me that it would stop here, but has it? So, now look at the mess.
         
         Yes indeed, the appropriate question is "what's next"?
         
         There are also rumblings in Alabama where officials dare to threaten women who choose to leave the state for another where the abortion procedure is legal. From where does the arrogance derive to restrict the movement of otherwise free people? How does the Right explain and justify? I would sure be anxious to hear their explanation. It is not enough to restrict the procedure within your jurisdiction, but this is about controlling and enslaving women and disregarding their voices.
         
         This is just one aspect of the gall of the Right, and there is just that much more. Short of their being politically vanquished, we will have no peace.
         
         Evangelical Christianity is nothing more than a rightwing cult, with Trump taking the place of Jesus as the model to imitate as an example.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            "Anything of this magnitude (criminalize abortion) with require an amendment to the Constitution with 3/4 of the states on board."
            
            I know better, you know better, we all know better.  Liberals have for decades approached the Constitution as a "living document", subject to informal (but binding) change at will.  All it will take is a SCOTUS decision that a fertilized egg is, in fact, a living human being with all the rights you have and the deed is done.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Credence2posted 7 months agoin reply to this

               Know it will not be that simple. It took a Constitutional Amendment to end slavery as the slaveholders were secure in possession of people as property and there was no authority within the Constitution to change that. An interpretation that a zygote has Constitutional Rights is now Conservative jurists going beyond the provisions of the constitution and I believe that you should know that.....
               
               The 14th Amendment defines citizenship as belonging to persons BORN, going outside of that is more Rightwingers legislating from the bench?
               
               https://www.npr.org/2022/07/06/11099655 … ts-is-toug

               replyreport
               1. 94

                  wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  "The 14th Amendment defines citizenship as belonging to persons BORN, going outside of that is more Rightwingers legislating from the bench?"
                  
                  No it doesn't - "born" actually means "conceived".  All it takes is some twisting and a willingness to declare that words mean something other than what they say.  Much like declaring that privacy rules give a woman the right to murder children.
                  
                  Cred, you know exactly what I'm talking about - you just don't want to happen this time because you disagree with the result and thus make up reasons it won't happen.
                  
                  You don't want it to happen, I don't want it to happen, a great many people don't want it to happen.  But if the evangelists get their way (and they're growing stronger) it WILL happen.  Denying the past history of "interpreting" the Constitution to mean whatever the current political leaning is won't change that.

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     Credence2posted 7 months agoin reply to this

                     "No it doesn't - "born" actually means "conceived".  All it takes is some twisting and a willingness to declare that words mean something other than what they say.  Much like declaring that privacy rules give a woman the right to murder children."
                     
                     But, where does THAT interpretation come from? It says born, not conceived. Since it does not explicitely say conceived, how is it to be interpreted that way? So, what is the meaning of the term unborn? The words are not subject to equivocation, it says what it says.
                     
                     While you may not agree, the court does not have the power to interpret the law contrary to what is already explicitely stated in Constitution. There is nothing for them to "interpret".
                     
                     The SC is not a law unto themselves. Let's just see how far they get with that idea that any such edict from them is possible. I don't care what the evangelist says, it won't happen.
                     
                     I don't have to make up what is obvious to anyone that has had a basic refresher course in civics.
                     
                     BTW, a zygote is not a child..

                     replyreport
                     1. 94

                        wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                        And the Constitution says "..."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"...so we limit it, remove the rights from millions, and generally change it to what we want to hear.  Because, you know, "infringe" does not mean we can't limit it, can't tell some they don't have the right, etc.
                        
                        "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"...so we limit that, too, because we find some speech wrong and so abridge the right of people to speak as they wish.
                        
                        C'mon, Cred; this is a liberal's dream; to make the Constitution mean whatever we want rather than what it says.  And we have done so for a long, long time - you just don't like the latest attempt (neither do I) and so declare it cannot happen this time even though it is common practice.

                        replyreport
2. 85

   Valeantposted 8 months ago

   I'm really surprised that no one has been successful in making the body autonomy claim at the Supreme Court level.  In no other situation can the government force you to have a medical procedure - and giving birth is a life threatening procedure for women.  That alone should make abortion legal for women.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Willowarborposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Quite a conundrum. And the  American College of Gynecology and Obstetrics says this:
      "Pregnancy is not an exception to the principle that a decisionally capable patient has the right to refuse treatment, even treatment needed to maintain life. Therefore, a decisionally capable pregnant woman’s decision to refuse recommended medical or surgical interventions should be respected.". 
      Yet the government has stepped in to deem a capable woman's decision to abort within a limited time frame, before viability , unacceptable?
      
      Since we've opened this is door and placed the government between a woman and her doctor, here's a thought.. if government can force a woman to give birth can it also force a woman to have an abortion?
      
      Anti abortion folk...So you believe a state should be able to force people to undergo medical procedures? Or does it only apply to women being forced to give birth?
      
      For the supporters here of forced birth, what are the benefits of forcing a woman to give birth when she seeks to abort?
      
      We have an abysmal foster care system in this country with nearly half a million kids languishing, many with special needs.  The states restricting or banning  abortion are at the lowest end when it comes to providing for children. A dozen of the most affected states won’t even expand Medicaid, purposefully denying hundreds of thousands of their poorest citizens basic health care. On top of that they are forcing women to give birth in states that already have the highest maternal and infant mortality rates.
      
      How is all this really going to shake out?

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

         "For the supporters here of forced birth, what are the benefits of forcing a woman to give birth when she seeks to abort?"
         
         Not a proponent (as defined under RvW), but the answer is exceedingly plain and I'm sure you recognize and understand it.  Nevertheless: the benefits is to save a life rather than murdering it.  Just ask any "anti-abortion folk".

         replyreport
3. 89

   IslandBitesposted 7 months ago

   Meanwhile in a highly religious, mainly catholic country...
   
   Mexico decriminalizes abortion, extending Latin American trend of widening access to procedure
   
   Mexico’s Supreme Court threw out all federal criminal penalties for abortion Wednesday, in a sweeping decision that extended Latin American’s trend of widening abortion access.
   
   The high court ordered that abortion be removed from the federal penal code. The ruling will require the federal public health service and all federal health institutions to offer abortion to anyone who requests it.
   
   “The First Chamber of the Court ruled that the legal system that penalizes abortion in the Federal Criminal Code is unconstitutional, since it violates the human rights of women and people with the capacity to gestate,” the Supreme Court said on social media.
   
   The country has become an unexpected haven for US residents after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022.

   replyreport
4. 78

   Credence2posted 7 months ago

   Even more from Slate magazine providing some information as to why right wing fanatics in Texas are proposing methods to deny women abortion rights which are basically unenforceable.
   
   https://news.yahoo.com/texas-bans-abort … 14769.html

   replyreport