Draft Alito opinion leaked overturning Roe

That's just stupid.
(Not your comment, the proposed legislation.)

 

I really think you are over stating this, I know nobody who is "prolife" who thinks the way some are portraying "the right"

 

I don't see a mother who miscarried facing the death penalty although I do think it's likely that sooner or later she could be prosecuted by an overly zealous DA. It's also my understanding that it's only a matter of time if it hasn't happened already and/or is included in some of the "trigger laws" it will be illegal to assistant a woman (or the woman herself for that matter) to travel to state where abortion is legal. Such a law could conceivably be challenged as an infringement of the right to travel although that right like the right to privacy is non-enumerated implied right raising the real possibility that Sam Alito and friends would uphold such statutes.

 

This is an outrageous straw man. No one that is pro-life that I know believes due process should be suspended. The state would still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any charge that is brought against someone. Just like any other law on the books, there are people who will get away with things. There are instances where the state won't have the evidence required to secure a conviction.

 

As posted elsewhere, doctors have said they have no way to tell if a miscarriage is natural or occurred by using an abortive agent. So yes, a woman could be accused of it and being unable to prove otherwise get charged.

And yes death penalty would be excessive. The penalty for murder in Louisiana is death. So yes I could see it happening.

Women have already faced manslaughter charges for miscarriages & that was before this mess.

 

Just like it was a straw man or outlandish to say contraceptives would be outlawed? And yet here we are.

 

To suggest men are not sympathetic to the cause and simply want to control a woman's rights to me borders on hypochondria. We don't live in a nation of honor killings or genitalia mutilation. Although the later can certainly be argued at this point but is not up for discussion in this thread.

I wonder what the Gallup poll will look like this year. As for Roe vs Wade being overturned the onus will fall to the State. As I read all the hand wringing and arguments from all sides of the issue to me the bigger question is where will a State fall on the issue. Given the poll a majority of men and women by gender believe abortion should be legal under certain circumstances. Given the poll there isn't much support for abortion under any circumstance. Depending on SCOTUS ruling how legislators respond and what parameters will be placed on abortion is yet to be determined.

Abortion Trends by Gender

 

This argument might make some sense if we lived in states where the legislators were accountable to the people. But due to gerrymandering and voter suppression, that's not a reality.

 

On that note we will have to wait and see because even in a gerrymandered community the poll suggests this spans all political stripes and is not limited to a single political affiliation.

 

So...when are they going to make Viagra illegal? Testosterone? All those lead to increased sex drive, which can lead to pregnancy. Where's the male contraceptive?

If I gave the impression that I meant every man was like this then I apologize. There are plenty out there speaking out against this decision and defending a woman's right to chose, especially physicians. But yes there are a number speaking out against this decision. When I speak of "men deciding" I mean Alito, state senators, the Texas governor, etc. Those types.

And no I don't think anyone is saying anything goes. Which is why I stand by viability as a guideline unless extenuating circumstances medically.

 

They weren't going to overturn r v w either, yet here we are.

 

It will pass (it is not a bill that explicitly does this, it is a fetal personhood bill that allows people to be charged with murder, but the implication as to how it is written is to outlaw certain forms of birth control as well as IVF). It got all Republicans on the committee to vote for it. If Republicans stick together (which they probably will), they will have enough votes to override the veto by our (Pro-Life but probably not Anti-IVF/Birth Control) Democratic Governor.

 

God will know his own. If she is innocent she will reside in heaven. No problem

 

I cant even think of a response to this that won't get me banned.

 

I never said anything about contraceptives. I haven't fully researched the issue, but I'm willing to bet not all contraceptives are the same. Some might work before conception, and some might work after conception. If Roe is struck down, then anything that harms human life after conception is fair game. The government's main job is person to person justice, and post-conception contraceptives would be in the domain of person to person justice.

 

For those who believe personhood starts at conception.

 

Sorry, I took on the persona of those types of believers and absolutists - it was sarcasm and black humor. Sorry for the confusion.

 

Here you go.

Birth Control and the IUD (Intrauterine Device)

It is designed to work BEFORE a woman gets pregnant.

This is what Louisiana is moving to ban/equate to homicide. Why? Because hormones whether naturally or taken can trigger a woman's period, and if the fertilized egg wasn't holding properly it would get eliminated with her menses. Which incidentally does happen anyway depending on how far prior to her period she actually got fertilized.

But no these aren't abortion pills. They're regular birth control. Which again also get used for medical purposes OTHER than contraceptives.

 

Oh ok. Good thing I didn't reply then LOL

 

So, are you advocating a death panel review all the medical decisions and actions of the mother to pass a case to the AG to prosecute a woman?

If that is the case, you should also be all for the state having a vested interest in such non-person and provide free healthcare, housing, and all the needs that the expecting mother could need to support her for the entire pregnancy.

If the state failed providing those needs, I assume you are good with the expecting mother to counter-sue the government for inadequate protections of said non-person that is occupying her personhood.