Abortion discussions - latest court cases

Amy L

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,010
I don't know why Graham is closeted, that's his choice. But if he can't be honest about who he is, maybe he shouldn't be telling women who they should be.
He claims to be religious, or at least at one point he was when he still had a soul. He was also a military JAG officer for decades, which was even before Don't Ask Don't Tell when someone could be kicked out for just being thought of as gay. There must be a lot of fermented self-hatred in there.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,738
He claims to be religious, or at least at one point he was when he still had a soul. He was also a military JAG officer for decades, which was even before Don't Ask Don't Tell when someone could be kicked out for just being thought of as gay. There must be a lot of fermented self-hatred in there.
That's what I was talking about with my parents the other day, that it looks like he's dissatisfied with himself and projects that onto his policies.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
61,427
I haven't and won't be procreating either but I will claim my right to speak on an issue that impacts the society I live in.

Graham has a right to speak on the issue because he is representing his constituents as an elected official. If enough voters don't like what he says they can vote him out.

IMO, his sexual orientation is irrelevant to whether he speaks on abortion.

Let's argue with his positions. I want to ask him, if he wants us to be in line with Europe, will he advocate public funding for abortions up to the 15 weeks he is advocating for them being legal?
 

once_upon

Enough
Messages
24,070
I vented on his views because there are way too many people on the "save a few cells/zygote/embryo" who have not experienced anything but a happy everything is beautiful Gerber baby type pregnancy, or believe every woman is loved and cherished while pregnant, or if they regulate abortion there will never be a need for abortion.

Believe the only reason women seek abortion is because they can't keep their knees together, or because they don't want to be inconvenienced by a child. Or believe that women are incapable of making a decision that is best for themselves.

Frankly I'm tired of him trying to make decisions for millions of women, and I've said similar things about heterosexual men too. Gay, Bisexual women, Trans men all face the potential of becoming pregnant whether by choice or by rape.

Pregnancy is something that only anyone with a uterus can experience. Sometimes the person with a uterus will involve the person with the sperm, but in the end, it's the person with the uterus who should be the ultimate decision maker. Not a law maker, not a religious leader, not the zealot, not a next door neighbor. The person whose uterus is the housing for those cells. That person with the uterus deserves safe medical care.

I vented on his presumed aexuality. That was a knee jerk reaction. But ultimately he does not have a uterus and will never have his life irreparably changed by that. Because, unless he is a transgender man, he does not have a uterus that can be invaded/occupied by a group of cells.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
61,427
Are you saying only people with uteruses should speak on abortion?

(I don't have one at this point...)

Seriously the reality is that people elect representatives with positions a lot of us find offensive. But because they are elected they do have a right to speak on the issue. But what they say and what legislation they advocate is up for fierce opposition from those who disagree!
 

once_upon

Enough
Messages
24,070
I assume you did at one point, which meant you had the potential of a pregnancy.

I'm saying the person who has the uterus should be the only person who makes the reproductive healthcare decisions. I may or may not agree with their decision - but ultimately it's not my body being invaded.

I say this as someone who had 6 pregnancies, 2 of which needed medical interventions to save my life, 2 of which needed medical interventions to fully evacuate the contents of an incomplete miscarriage, besides the 2 needing medical intervention another 1 that was extremely high risk.

But in every single one of those pregnancies I HAD CHOICES to control my own body. I had choices to choose the medical interventions to do what I felt was right for me. In all those cases I consulted my spouse, but I was not required to have his signature on any medical procedure permits.

I didn't need Mr. Graham to legislate what I should do/could do, I didn't need the almighty celibate Pope to decide what was best, I didn't need my anti-abortion neighbor Amy to decide what was best for me, and I didn't need my doctor to decide what was best for me - I got facts to guide me in decisions.

What I needed was a Supreme Court that believed in safe medical care rights for me, which gave me the ability to seek safe medical care. What women, transgendered men have now is no choice to receive safe medical care.
 

once_upon

Enough
Messages
24,070
Pre the Roe decision in the 70's, I would have been required to have my husband's signature on ALL the medical consents regarding those pregnancies and the medical decision/consent for tubal ligation.

In fact, getting birth control pills, diaphragm or IUD would have required his consent or parental consent. I believe, but I'm old and not completely sure I'm remembering right spermicide and condoms were behind the pharmacy counters and you needed to ask (the typically male) pharmacist to allow you to purchase them.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
39,531
I think medical decisions should be private including abortion. I disagree with people like Graham who want to take the decisions away from individuals. The only way to make sure we have privacy is by winning at the polls.
Winning the polls, and convincing that minority who has more political power than they should through our undemocratic structures.
 

Dobre

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,288

Arizona Judge Reinstates Strict Abortion Ban From 1864​

A 15-week abortion ban passed this year will take effect on Saturday. But the attorney general has argued that the near-total ban from the 19th century should take precedence.


"A judge on Friday ruled that a near-total abortion ban written before Arizona became a state must be enforced, throwing abortion access into question one day before the start of a 15-week ban that passed the Legislature this year.

The stricter ban, which can be traced to 1864, was blocked by a court injunction in 1973 shortly after the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, determined that there was a constitutional right to abortion.

On Friday, Judge Kellie Johnson of Pima County Superior Court lifted that injunction, noting that Roe had been overruled in June and that Planned Parenthood’s request for the court to “harmonize the laws” in Arizona was flawed.

The 1864 law, first established by the state’s territorial legislature, mandates a two- to five-year prison sentence for anyone who helps a woman obtain an abortion. In 1901, the state updated and codified the law."
 

MacMadame

Doing all the things
Messages
51,551
A 15-week abortion ban passed this year will take effect on Saturday. But the attorney general has argued that the near-total ban from the 19th century should take precedence.
WTF? He's saying an older law should be enforced over a more recent law? That doesn't seem to me to be how law works.

For those who can't read the NYT, here's a gifted article from WaPo:
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
13,275

Arizona Judge Reinstates Strict Abortion Ban From 1864​

A 15-week abortion ban passed this year will take effect on Saturday. But the attorney general has argued that the near-total ban from the 19th century should take precedence.


"A judge on Friday ruled that a near-total abortion ban written before Arizona became a state must be enforced, throwing abortion access into question one day before the start of a 15-week ban that passed the Legislature this year.

The stricter ban, which can be traced to 1864, was blocked by a court injunction in 1973 shortly after the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, determined that there was a constitutional right to abortion.

On Friday, Judge Kellie Johnson of Pima County Superior Court lifted that injunction, noting that Roe had been overruled in June and that Planned Parenthood’s request for the court to “harmonize the laws” in Arizona was flawed.

The 1864 law, first established by the state’s territorial legislature, mandates a two- to five-year prison sentence for anyone who helps a woman obtain an abortion. In 1901, the state updated and codified the law."
Historian Heather Cox Richardson has some interesting background on the 1864 Arizona Code of Law that is cited here. Apparently, this was the original code for the territory, and was written by a single judge. The section cited is part of the code that prohibits duelling, eye gouging, and other physical assaults.


The code also sets the age of consent at 10.
 

Allskate

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,865
WTF? He's saying an older law should be enforced over a more recent law? That doesn't seem to me to be how law works.

For those who can't read the NYT, here's a gifted article from WaPo:
https://wapo.st/3rat5M0
As the article notes, when the new law was enacted in March, the legislature included in the new law a provision that the new law did not explicitly or implicitly repeal the old law. (The older ban had been unenforceable because of Roe.) So, basically, it seems like they were trying to enact something like the Mississippi law at issue in Dobbs while effectively having a trigger law that would ban abortions if Roe were overturned.

Dobbs went far beyond saying that the Mississippi law was legal. In his Dobbs concurrence, Chief Justice Roberts basically said that the Mississippi law was okay under his interpretation of cases such has Roe and Casey. But, the majority went further and just outright overruled Roe. The Arizona legislature basically hedged their bets and made provisions so that they would limit abortions as much as possible under any potential decisions by the Supreme Court.
 

Amy L

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,010

Lots of examples in the article, but this one stood out to me. A former coworker of mine had a son die within weeks of a melanoma diagnosis, so the idea of having to pause the treatment of Stage 3 cancer to travel out of a state for a necessary medical procedure is rage-inducing. It could be my womanly hysteria acting up again, but these laws are nothing but cruel. The shrinking number of states willing to perform abortions (and the wait time for them) are a death sentence to so many women. How many dead women does it take to go from unfortunate statistic to systemic murder by inaction?

A 37-year-old woman came for an abortion June 27 — three days after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe. The patient had stage three melanoma and had been told she needed an abortion before she could continue receiving cancer treatment, per a submitted affidavit by Aeran Trick, operations manager at the clinic.
“Upon learning that she would need to travel out of state to have her abortion, the patient broke down and cried inconsolably, despite the attempts of multiple staff, including myself, to comfort her,” Trick said in the affidavit.
 

once_upon

Enough
Messages
24,070
These are older articles, before the Roe decision but emphasize the horror suffered by parents who, because of health issues need to have access to abortion


The pure evil of politicians writing laws that have no exclusions for abortion, not even in cases where the mother's life is in question, is too much for me to handle. Not all fetuses aborted are unwanted. They are not going to be the perfectly little formed Gerber Baby. They can be the late term abortion. Not all mothers will survive.

Regardless of reason a woman seeks abortion, it should never be someone else's decision.
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,006

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information