Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[Ingomike]

And do not forget that that planned parenthood is a money laundering front for the dem party. I posted a link to a detailed article explaining how the money flows from the feds in legislation to pp then to dems. Something like $50 million against Trump…

 

[Leadeye]

This whole question will be best answered at the ballot boxes of state elections in the future. At this point it has assumed the vitriol of a religious war, and sadly I think that's what some involved want.

 

[Leadeye]

Mental illness has no boundaries.............

Sounds pretty crazy, I wonder if DOJ is investigating. Maybe they can spare a little time from the search for the elusive white supremacist.

 

[BiscuitsandGravy]

Sounds pretty crazy, I wonder if DOJ is investigating. Maybe they can spare a little time from the search for the elusive white supremacist.

That tweet crystalizes the insanity we are witnessing in 2022.

 

[Shadow01]

The DNA is unique, but a pre-viability fetus is the exact opposite of independent.

While in-utero, that “unique individual” is entirely dependent on the cooperation of its mother to survive to birth: she eats for, respires for, and processes the waste for that “independent individual”, and she does so at her own peril…a non-zero number of American women die during otherwise routine childbirth, countless more carry permanent injury or disability following their pregnancy.

My argument is that a woman herself, not the government or society at large, faces the risks associated with pregnancy and birth, and no other person on the planet can assume those risks for her, so no other person can assert consent to those risks for her.

A woman can reassess her risk at any time during pregnancy, and she may decide those risks to her are too great to continue a pregnancy, even a wanted one.

In my view, “we” don’t get a say in the life of that child until it joins us in our world. Until birth the life of an unborn child belongs to the the mother alone, and she alone gets to decide which “unique individuals” get to pass through her body.

Other than rape, the mother agreed to the creation of the new DNA by having unprotected sex. Her decision has been made.

 

[HoughMade]

Yes, and no. I posted the link to the wrong page sorta. Here is the link I should have posted. It's the section of code before the one I did.

Indiana Code Title 16. Health § 16-34-2-1 | FindLaw

Indiana Title 16. Health Section 16-34-2-1. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

Just for fun...as if, I'm going to quote a bunch of Indiana statutes (not all) here that deal with abortion so people can see what is already on the books. These are a fraction of the statutes, but give a good idea of Indiana's public policy as expressed in its statutes:
___________

Childbirth is preferred, encouraged, and supported over abortion.
Ind. Code § 16-34-1-1
___________

Neither the state nor any political subdivision of the state may make a payment from any fund under its control for the performance of an abortion unless the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman.
Ind. Code § 16-34-1-2
___________

(a) The general assembly finds the following:

(1) There is substantial medical evidence that a fetus at twenty (20) weeks of postfertilization age has the physical structures necessary to experience pain.

(2) There is substantial medical evidence that a fetus of at least twenty (20) weeks of postfertilization age seeks to evade certain stimuli in a manner similar to an infant’s or adult’s response to pain.

(3) Anesthesia is routinely administered to a fetus of at least twenty (20) weeks of postfertilization age when prenatal surgery is performed.

(4) A fetus has been observed to exhibit hormonal stress responses to painful stimuli earlier than at twenty (20) weeks of postfertilization age.

(b) Indiana asserts a compelling state interest in protecting the life of a fetus from the state at which substantial medical evidence indicates that the fetus is capable of feeling pain.
Ind. Code § 16-34-1-9
___________

(a) Abortion shall in all instances be a criminal act, except when performed under the following circumstances:
(1) Except as prohibited in IC 16-34-4, during the first trimester of pregnancy for reasons based upon the professional, medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s physician if:
(A) the abortion is performed by the physician;
(B) the woman submitting to the abortion has filed her consent with her physician. However, if in the judgment of the physician the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the woman, her consent is not required; and
(C) the woman submitting to the abortion has filed with her physician the written consent of her parent or legal guardian if required under section 4 [IC 16-34-2-4] of this chapter.
However, an abortion inducing drug may not be dispensed, prescribed, administered, or otherwise given to a pregnant woman after eight (8) weeks of postfertilization age. A physician must dispense the abortion inducing drug in person and have the pregnant woman consume the drug in the presence of the physician. A physician shall examine a pregnant woman in person before prescribing or dispensing an abortion inducing drug. The physician shall provide the pregnant woman with a copy of the manufacturer’s instruction sheets and require that the pregnant woman sign the manufacturer’s patient agreement form. A physician shall also provide, orally and in writing, along with other discharge information, the following statement: “Some evidence suggests that the effects of Mifepristone may be avoided, ceased, or reversed if the second pill, Misoprostol, has not been taken. Immediately contact the following for more information at (insert applicable abortion inducing drug reversal Internet web site and corresponding hotline number).” The physician shall retain a copy of the signed patient agreement form, and the signed physician’s agreement form required by the manufacturer, in the patient’s file. As used in this subdivision, “in person” does not include the use of telehealth or telemedicine services.
(2) Except as prohibited by IC 16-34-4, after the first trimester of pregnancy and before the earlier of viability of the fetus or twenty (20) weeks of postfertilization age, for reasons based upon the professional, medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s physician if:
(A) all the circumstances and provisions required for legal abortion during the first trimester are present and adhered to; and
(B) the abortion is performed in a hospital or ambulatory outpatient surgical center (as defined in IC 16-18-2-14).
(3) Except as provided in subsection (b) or as prohibited by IC 16-34-4, at the earlier of viability of the fetus or twenty (20) weeks of postfertilization age and any time after, for reasons based upon the professional, medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s physician if:
(A) all the circumstances and provisions required for legal abortion before the earlier of viability of the fetus or twenty (20) weeks of postfertilization age are present and adhered to;
(B) the abortion is performed in compliance with section 3 [IC 16-34-2-3] of this chapter; and
(C) before the abortion the attending physician shall certify in writing to the hospital in which the abortion is to be performed, that in the attending physician’s professional, medical judgment, after proper examination and review of the woman’s history, the abortion is necessary to prevent a substantial permanent impairment of the life or physical health of the pregnant woman. All facts and reasons supporting the certification shall be set forth by the physician in writing and attached to the certificate.
(b) A person may not knowingly or intentionally perform a partial birth abortion unless a physician reasonably believes that:
(1) performing the partial birth abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life; and
(2) no other medical procedure is sufficient to save the mother’s life.
(c) A person may not knowingly or intentionally perform a dismemberment abortion unless reasonable medical judgment dictates that performing the dismemberment abortion is necessary:
(1) to prevent any serious health risk to the mother; or
(2) to save the mother’s life.
(d) Telehealth and telemedicine may not be used to provide any abortion, including the writing or filling of a prescription for any purpose that is intended to result in an abortion.
Ind. Code § 16-34-2-1
___________

(a) A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion before the earlier of viability of the fetus or twenty (20) weeks of postfertilization age if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with any other disability or has a potential diagnosis of any other disability.
(b) A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion after viability of the fetus or twenty (20) weeks of postfertilization age if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with any other disability or has a potential diagnosis of any other disability.
Ind. Code § 16-34-4-7

 

[LeftyGunner]

That wasn't really my question, though. Would abortion proponents consider Indiana "anti-choice"/"anti-women"/"Literal Gilead"/etc. with laws that permit elective abortion until 20 weeks, while simultaneously admitting/claiming that 99% of abortions take place earlier than 15 weeks?

I really hope not. Hyperbole doesn’t help the cause.

I think our discussion illustrates just how hard it is to reach a meaningful and effective compromise with this issue, even between people who act in good faith.

I think the Indiana law is a good-faith attempt at striking that compromise, and I think it does a pretty good job of it.

Personally, I think 20 weeks is sufficient time for a woman to a) realize she is pregnant, and b) fully weigh the consequences of her various options.

I might prefer a more liberal medical carve-out, but I think the one we have is a fair compromise.

Indiana may not be at the cutting edge of reproductive freedoms, but we are hardly Gilead.

 

[Shadow01]

The law should be nuanced and have certain carve-outs. Not some ham handed blanket law. you dont get nuance in 2 weeks.

If you carve out for rape as an example, what do you do with the mother afterwards if the rape claim was false? Also does this allow for a premeditated murder charge for the woman?
If a rape is claimed, must there be formal charges against A man before that claim can be used for an abortion? Must the man be convicted before that claim can be used for an abortion? What happens if said trial is delayed more than 9 months? Exactly how deep are we willing to “nuance” a carve out in a law that would allow for children that can’t protect themselves from harm, be murdered?

 

[Shadow01]

View attachment 208461

QFT

 

[Shadow01]

LOL, they forgot, they ain't in Seattle any more.

All this needs is commentary from the Florida Sheriff…

 

[foszoe]

Two critical differences. Our position on 2A is backed up by the constitution and we have already 'compromised' on infringement too much and thus, seeing there is no end to the compromising (read: desired further infringement), we dig in our heels

Neither is true of those who are pro-abortion. Their position has no constitutional backing and their continued push for less and less restriction was never met with meaningful, court sanctioned limitation UNTIL the question was taken up by the final court possible

My points were more of stances. I see yours as rationale and agree with your elaborations.

 

[chipbennett]

If you carve out for rape as an example, what do you do with the mother afterwards if the rape claim was false? Also does this allow for a premeditated murder charge for the woman?
If a rape is claimed, must there be formal charges against A man before that claim can be used for an abortion? Must the man be convicted before that claim can be used for an abortion? What happens if said trial is delayed more than 9 months? Exactly how deep are we willing to “nuance” a carve out in a law that would allow for children that can’t protect themselves from harm, be murdered?

I think it would be reasonable to require a filed police report alleging the rape, in order to invoke a rape exception for abortion.

I see no value or benefit from charging the mother with premeditated murder due to a falsified rape allegation. The punishment for the false allegation/false police report should be sufficient, I would think.

 

[HoughMade]

I see no value or benefit from charging the mother with premeditated murder due to a falsified rape allegation. The punishment for the false allegation/false police report should be sufficient, I would think.

I agree.

Personally, I'm not sure I would have criminal penalties on the women who seek abortions at all....but I would have to think about that more. There are plenty of medical procedures that are illegal in various ways, but very few (if any) that makes the patient seeking the procedure a criminal.

...but I'm an old softy.

 

[JEBland]

I hope you would keep in mind that, like politics, 'society' is probably granular to the local level. If Antifa or Jane's Revenge claim the right to act in ways a locality might find has 'negative effects', how 'society' sorts that out will vary substantially from location to location. The video of SC police tasing and arresting protesters compared to how they would be treated in DC or Seattle should attest to that

Thinking that the concept of 'society' is a monolithic whole rather than a vector sum may lead to those acting up too much in the wrong place developing leaks. People from progressive enclaves seem to expect their home RoE to apply everywhere and are quite surprised when they do not

I don't understand the criticism. We expand individual liberty. Damaged like the Antifa and Jane's Revenge butters deserve damaged because they violate others' rights.

 

[foszoe]

At the very least, allow enough time for the legislators, as well as the electorate, to actually read and comment upon it

No more 'We had to pass the bill in order to see what was in it'

Agree with this also especially now someone has pointed out the law in Indiana allows abortions to 20 weeks vs full term.

I have never understood how voting for something before reading it was a good thing in a world where I am supposed to read and agree to EULAs Privacy policy changes, and everything else I "sign".....

At least when I just click through those, I am not affecting everyone in my voting bloc.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I think it would be reasonable to require a filed police report alleging the rape, in order to invoke a rape exception for abortion.

I see no value or benefit from charging the mother with premeditated murder due to a falsified rape allegation. The punishment for the false allegation/false police report should be sufficient, I would think.

This discussion really highlights the inconsistency of saying abortion is wrong except in cases of rape, especially if your argument for abortion being wrong is that an unborn child has a right to life.

If I kill someone and claim self defense, but then my claim of self defense is proven to be wrong, would you say I should be charged only with giving the police false information? And if that analogy doesn't hold up for you, then what's the difference between that and the woman in our hypothetical case?

 

[chipbennett]

This discussion really highlights the inconsistency of saying abortion is wrong except in cases of rape, especially if your argument for abortion being wrong is that an unborn child has a right to life.

If I kill someone and claim self defense, but then my claim of self defense is proven to be wrong, would you say I should be charged only with giving the police false information? And if that analogy doesn't hold up for you, then what's the difference between that and the woman in our hypothetical case?

Understand that my frame of reference is as a Christian. As such, I believe that, ultimately, we will each answer to a Higher power, that Justice will prevail, and that vengeance, where necessary, will be the responsibility and the doing of that Higher power.

With that background, I simply don't see a societal benefit in going after the women who have abortions. Make abortion illegal. Go after the abortion providers. I see no need to go after the women.

 

[Shadow01]

I think it would be reasonable to require a filed police report alleging the rape, in order to invoke a rape exception for abortion.

I see no value or benefit from charging the mother with premeditated murder due to a falsified rape allegation. The punishment for the false allegation/false police report should be sufficient, I would think.

How many false allegations or police reports result in the death of a third party? I can’t see the legislation making a punishment for a false police report being on par with the punishment for ending a life.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Understand that my frame of reference is as a Christian. As such, I believe that, ultimately, we will each answer to a Higher power, that Justice will prevail, and that vengeance, where necessary, will be the responsibility and the doing of that Higher power.

With that background, I simply don't see a societal benefit in going after the women who have abortions. Make abortion illegal. Go after the abortion providers. I see no need to go after the women.

Ah, I see. I guess I had assumed that you were saying that women would be legally punished for abortions, unless they filed a false rape report, in which case they would only get the penalty for the false report (my bad, I pretty sure I remember now that you'd already clarified this in a previous post.)

Well, I'm not 100% sure whether or not I agree with you on the whole no legal penalties for the woman procuring an abortion, but it's at least a consistent position that I can understand and respect. I guess I'm just thinking that from a pro-life perspective it doesn't make much sense to treat a woman who asks someone to kill her preborn child differently than a woman who asks someone to kill her already born child.

But to get back to the whole rape exception thing, imagine now what this looks like from the perspective of the abortionist. We're basically saying to him, okay here's this human baby who is perfectly innocent and has a right to life, so if you kill him/her we're going to punish you under the law. Oh wait, this baby's father allegedly committed a crime? Never mind, break out the scissors and dismember away!

 

[chipbennett]

How many false allegations or police reports result in the death of a third party? I can’t see the legislation making a punishment for a false police report being on par with the punishment for ending a life.

I have no problem with enhancing the penalty for filing such a false report. Just, as a matter of principle, I don't see value in charging, prosecuting, and punishing the women who have abortions.