Author Topic: Abortion & Life  (Read 159392 times)


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
weslyan funding abortion and BS for students
« Reply #451 on: May 11, 2023, 06:57:38 AM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: weslyan funding abortion and BS for students
« Reply #452 on: May 11, 2023, 07:02:58 AM »
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/education/connecticut-wesleyan-pay-for-students-abortions

I though colleges were for education

not funding sex parties......

They are for whatever the left wants them for, which doesn't include actual education.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
WSJ: Bitch slap from political reality
« Reply #454 on: August 09, 2023, 12:08:28 PM »
Ohio Vote Is Another Warning to GOP on Abortion
Defeat of Issue 1 on Tuesday is likely to encourage abortion-rights advocates to put the issue on more ballots
By Laura Kusisto
Aug. 9, 2023 2:38 pm ET



Even in red-leaning states, support for abortion rights is again proving to be a potent electoral force.

That was the message of Tuesday’s vote in Ohio, where voters rejected a ballot measure that would have made it harder to add abortion rights to the state’s constitution.

The victory for abortion-rights groups, which follows similar wins in Kansas and Michigan, is likely to encourage abortion-rights advocates to put the issue on ballots in more states next year and beyond. Such moves could boost Democratic turnout at a time when many party leaders are worried about low enthusiasm for re-electing President Biden because of his age and weak job-approval ratings.

Republicans likely will have to continue grappling with how much to respond to their conservative base on the issue given that efforts to restrict abortion appear to alienate many moderate and independent voters, particularly in the suburbs.

The Ohio vote Tuesday on the proposal known as Issue 1, didn’t directly touch on the issue of abortion, but it would have put a significant hurdle in front of a separate measure—on the November ballot—to enshrine abortion rights in the state’s constitution. Issue 1 would have raised the threshold to amend the state’s constitution by referendum to 60% support, instead of a simple majority. As of Tuesday afternoon, with 97% of the ballots in, the vote stood at 57% against Issue 1 and 43% in support, according to the Associated Press.


Both antiabortion and abortion rights groups ran millions of dollars of advertising in the state in recent weeks. Republican Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who supported Issue 1, said it was needed to raise the standards for future amendments, but at a Lincoln Day event in May he said it was “100% about keeping a radical, pro-abortion amendment out of our constitution.”

Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director of URGE, an abortion-rights group, said Issue 1 was “a cynical attempt to sabotage the power of the people to secure abortion access and they failed.”

Abortion-rights groups have prevailed in six ballot measures since the overturning of Roe v. Wade last June. But a key question has been whether they can continue winning referendums in conservative and politically mixed states, as well as leverage voter passions about the issue in other political races.



“It’s pretty clear what direction this stuff is going in. I do think it sends a pretty strong incentive for Democrats to get that on the ballot,” especially in the 2024 presidential election, said Susan Burgess, distinguished professor emerita of political science at Ohio University.

Abortion-rights supporters are gathering signatures in Florida to put a measure on the ballot enshrining abortion rights in that state’s constitution in 2024, which would go before voters as GOP Sen. Rick Scott is seeking re-election. A similar effort is under way in Arizona, one of the most competitive presidential swing states and home to one of the year’s marquee Senate races. That measure could also appear on the November 2024 ballot.

Nationally, Republicans have struggled with how to frame the issue. Republican presidential hopefuls are under pressure from antiabortion groups, an important source of political support, to support a national 15-week ban. So far, leading candidates, including GOP Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former President Donald Trump, have avoided committing to a national ban, although some of their rivals have.

In a warning sign for Republicans nationally, the Ohio results signaled that support for abortion rights can drive voter turnout. The defeat of Issue 1, by a landslide 14 percentage points, came as more than 3 million voters cast ballots. It was a large turnout for a summertime, off-year election, and substantially higher than the state’s most recent primary election, in May 2022.


Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who supported Issue 1, said in May that measure was ‘about keeping a radical, pro-abortion amendment out’ of the state’s constitution. PHOTO: JAY LAPRETE/ASSOCIATED PRESS
The results also suggested that abortion restrictions draw wide opposition not only in the nation’s populous cities and suburbs but also the exurbs—the communities on the edges of the suburbs that Republicans have relied on to produce big voting margins. Lately, those margins have slipped. The nation’s exurbs swung away from Trump between 2016 and 2020, trimming his 18 point margin from 2016 by 6 percentage points, a Wall Street Journal analysis found after the last presidential election.

In Ohio, outside Columbus, Trump won exurban Delaware County—one of the state’s most populous—by 7 points in 2020; voters there rejected Issue 1 by 16 points. Voters were split about evenly on the measure in Fairfield County, an exurb of Columbus, and Butler County, an exurb of Cincinnati. Trump had won both in 2020 by more than 20 percentage points.

The results also showed that the nation’s urban-rural differences remain an important dividing line in politics. In the 10 Ohio counties that each produced more than 80,000 votes, Issue 1 failed in nine. In the 50 counties that each produced fewer than 15,000 votes, voters favored the measure in all but two.


It remains far from clear whether Tuesday’s results will lead to a revival of Democratic fortunes in Ohio or other similarly conservative states.

“Right now you’re seeing a lot of Democrats take victory laps in the state” and suggesting Ohio may now be more of a swing state, said Robert Alexander, founding director of the Institute for Civics and Public Policy at Ohio Northern University. “That might be a bridge too far.”


The defeat of Ohio’s Issue 1 came as more than 3 million voters cast ballots—a strong turnout for a summertime, off-year election. PHOTO: KURT STEISS/THE BLADE/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Democrats can look to Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who won re-election by more than 10 points in a race that turned in large part on her opponent’s support for abortion restrictions and featured an abortion amendment on the ballot.

But several GOP governors handily won re-election last year after backing strict abortion restrictions, including Govs. Brian Kemp of Georgia and Greg Abbott of Texas. In Florida, DeSantis won re-election by nearly 20 percentage points after signing a ban on most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. He later signed a six-week ban.

Tuesday’s vote in Ohio was also likely affected by factors other than abortion. Many voters across the political spectrum viewed it as an attack on democracy and the citizens’ veto, political scientists said.

Nonetheless, polling in the state shows strong support for abortion rights. Opponents of the procedure said that in the lead-up to the November vote they plan to focus on arguments that the amendment would abrogate parental rights.

Nonetheless, Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, acknowledged it will be an uphill battle for the antiabortion side, which is likely to be outspent and doesn’t have the wind at its back in these types of races nationally.

“Every state battle has to be now and is de facto a national battle,” he said. “It creates a certain momentum, a certain expectation, a certain emboldening of one side or another.”

Write to Laura Kusisto at Laura.Kusisto@wsj.com and Aaron Zitner at aaron.zitner@wsj.com

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18650
    • View Profile
Re: WSJ: Bitch slap from political reality
« Reply #455 on: August 10, 2023, 07:00:50 AM »
Still no national Republican leadership on this.

Pro life advocates need to separate the moral and legal aspects.  You don't enshrine it in the legal system when a majority of the people disagree with you.

I've been saying, find the 60-40 balance point for now, and that point is different in different states.  Find that point in law or get used to losing elections.

Heart beat, ability to feel pain or just imagery are ways to judge when a fertilized egg goes from a blob in the mother to a separate human being inside the mother.

Conservatives seem unable to operate with liberal tactics.  Probably 30 or 40 states could have at least passed protection for the unborn in the 9th month, or 8th and 8th month.  Maybe 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th month in some states.  Start somewhere where the Left cannot defeat you, and build political support from there.  But no.  It's all or none, polls and elections be damned.  And so here we are, overreaching politically and losing. Lose the states, lose the nation, lose the economy, lose the rest of our rights, but we held the moral ground!  Or did we?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion & Life
« Reply #456 on: August 10, 2023, 09:11:58 AM »
well said Doug
Agree 100%

no question this will be played nonstop in MSM during the few moments not talking about Trump.

De Santis could easily take this up but seems to refuse
instead is now stuck at 6 weeks due to signing law in Florida
even if he changes it to far more reasonable 14 to 16 weeks he will be asked 100 % of the time why did he then sign law of 6 weeks

Laura Ingraham mentioned yesterday that overturning Roe Wade was the greatest achievement of Conservatives

That his her opinion. - of course she fails to mention it was the greatest political blunder in history if as Doug points out - we DO NOT separate the legal from the political reality.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion & Life
« Reply #457 on: August 10, 2023, 11:46:34 AM »

"De Santis could easily take this up but seems to refuse.  Instead he is now stuck at 6 weeks due to signing law in Florida.  Even if he changes it to far more reasonable 14 to 16 weeks, he will be asked 100 % of the time why did he then sign law of 6 weeks."

There is another possible political out here-- he can say there is no federal role here.

"Laura Ingraham mentioned yesterday that overturning Roe Wade was the greatest achievement of Conservatives. That his her opinion. - of course she fails to mention it was the greatest political blunder in history if as Doug points out - we DO NOT separate the legal from the political reality."

Dobbs was a great victory.  The political problem arises from how we poltically have played the legal victory e.g. 6 weeks in FL and similar outcomes in some other states.

===============================

https://patriotpost.us/articles/99565-ohios-abortion-warning-2023-08-10?mailing_id=7700&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.7700&utm_campaign=digest&utm_content=body
« Last Edit: August 10, 2023, 11:50:19 AM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
LEFT getting out in front of any anti or limited abortion candidates
« Reply #458 on: September 09, 2023, 12:14:30 PM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/post-roe-america-nikki-haley-151602006.html

got to get the girly vote, those who cannot live without ability to abort at any time.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion & Life
« Reply #459 on: September 10, 2023, 03:39:43 AM »
Is that fair?  Is she not against third trimester abortions?
« Last Edit: September 10, 2023, 12:34:04 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion & Life
« Reply #460 on: September 10, 2023, 11:36:38 AM »
I applaud Haley on this.
I was criticizing the NYT
which I felt was kind of writing an attack piece on Nikki
who on Jake Tapper today is impressive though again weak on immigration

Frankly I am thinking she would be better than DeSantis. Certainly better than you know who.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion & Life
« Reply #464 on: November 06, 2023, 11:59:01 AM »
That is both seriously stupid and seriously inconvenient.

I've had such high hopes for him too , , ,

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
American Thinker:GOP cannot make up its mind on abortion
« Reply #465 on: November 13, 2023, 09:47:48 AM »
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/11/gop_cant_make_up_its_mind_about_abortion.html

I think the GOP has made up its mind.

Unfortunately, a large part of the electorate simply does not agree.

That all said I am not clear why some people on the LEFT choose this topic to be the all encompassing reason to vote for the Dems
with so much else going on.




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18650
    • View Profile
Re: American Thinker:GOP cannot make up its mind on abortion
« Reply #466 on: November 13, 2023, 01:57:59 PM »
GOP should make up it's mind on a lot of things.

Abortion has different aspects, medical, moral, political, legal.

Let's say you are 100% pro life and think everyone should be.  In the political shere, you need to convince others of that before putting it in law. The law should be state by state and it should where you can get 85% or so agreement, not banned, no exceptions and not unrestricted to full term.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18650
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion & Life
« Reply #467 on: November 18, 2023, 05:44:21 AM »
Keeping our woke vernacular up to date, we will no longer be referring to unborn babies.  They are womb colonizers!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
WSJ: Trump and Haley get it right
« Reply #472 on: January 29, 2024, 07:09:13 PM »


The GOP hasn’t crowned its nominee for president, but the party has found what it’s sought for months: a winning message on abortion. Though different in style, Donald Trump and Nikki Haley strike similar notes on the issue. Both are pro-life, yet neither supports a federal ban. Their message resonates with a majority of Republicans and could sway a majority of Americans, 55% of whom told Gallup that they oppose abortion in the second trimester. Their position offers the pro-life movement the best chance at saving the unborn.

OPINION: FREE EXPRESSION
Free Expression
That Was Quick: Trump, Biden and the Shortest Primary Contest in History


SUBSCRIBE
Add to Queue
Explore Audio Center
First, consider the candidates they beat. Ron DeSantis, Tim Scott and Mike Pence each supported enacting a federal abortion ban at 15 weeks gestation. While polling shows that many Americans support such a limit in theory, the issue has proved a nonstarter in practice. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, pro-life activists have suffered defeat in ballot measures in such states as Michigan, Ohio and Kansas. Mr. Trump and Ms. Haley have charted a different course.

Mr. Trump’s position seems more or less grounded in political calculation. At a town hall shortly before the Iowa caucuses, he took credit for appointing justices who overturned Roe. At the same time, he said he supported exceptions for the “life of the mother, rape, incest” and wouldn’t push for strict bans in a second term. “I want to get something where people are happy,” he said. “You have to win elections.”

Ms. Haley’s position is politically honest. As South Carolina governor, she signed a 20-week abortion ban, along with other measures such as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Though she said she would have signed a six-week restriction into law, Ms. Haley has also rightly noted that such policies have no chance of passing at the federal level. Doing so would require 60 senators to clear a filibuster. The GOP hasn’t had a majority that size since 1910. Given these constraints, Ms. Haley has promised to “find a consensus that allows us to save as many babies as we can while supporting women in difficult situations.” She wants Americans to “show love for one another, not judgment or contempt.”

image
Nikki Haley speaks during a rally in Concord, N.H., Jan. 23. PHOTO: BRIAN SNYDER/REUTERS
Both candidates offer exactly what Americans are looking for: consensus. Polls show that voters want something of a compromise—neither strict bans nor limitless access. While Democrats have successfully run state and federal campaigns warning against national restrictions in the past two years, they’ll struggle to pull the same stunt with Mr. Trump or Ms. Haley. Both candidates can shake their heads, smile at the camera, and honestly say: “I stand with the American people.”

Many in the pro-life movement are fearful of this development, concerned that the Republican Party is abandoning its principles for the sake of political expediency. They needn’t fret. Mr. Trump and Ms. Haley haven’t gone soft on abortion. They’re simply doing the hard work of being pro-life without alienating the majority of Americans who describe themselves as pro-choice.

Critical to that approach is speaking up about abortion. There are many people, on the left and right, who would prefer the GOP to ignore the issue altogether. That would be political malpractice, alienating a significant contingent of the GOP base. More important, it would be wrong on principle. Lives are at stake, and if the Republican Party won’t defend them, no one in politics will. Mr. Trump and Ms. Haley aren’t shy on the issue and stick to principle even as they admit political reality.

In the post-Roe landscape, pro-lifers won’t be maximally effective unless we win elections, influence policy, and continue to shape hearts and minds. One of the most successful ways to persuade more people to the cause is with a pro-life president behind the bully pulpit: someone who can uniquely make the case in the public square that unborn children and pregnant mothers deserve protection. In Mr. Trump and Ms. Haley, the movement has its winning message for life.

Mr. Busch is founder of the Napa Institute, a Catholic organization.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion & Life
« Reply #475 on: February 24, 2024, 05:48:38 AM »
I did not know that either, but the prof indulges with hyperbolic, sanctimonious crap when he calls the decision a sign of theocracy.

There is sound science and rational logic supporting the definition of the beginning of Life at conception.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion & Life
« Reply #476 on: February 24, 2024, 09:21:47 AM »
"but the prof indulges with hyperbolic, sanctimonious crap"

Absolutely. I had no doubt prof is a Democrat from the get go.  :wink:

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion & Life
« Reply #477 on: February 24, 2024, 06:14:38 PM »
Regarding that "first draws breath" standard-- it was articulated before protecting life upon viability was an option.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
Tangle on the IVF decision in AL
« Reply #478 on: February 26, 2024, 05:47:27 PM »
I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today's read: 12 minutes.
👶
An Alabama court ruling on in vitro fertilization has ignited a debate about the process. Plus, a question about Project 2025.


Today, a growing community of more than 400,000 rely on The Dispatch to help make sense of a political world gone crazy. Get news and analysis that is more than a scripted reality show.

Tangle readers: Claim your exclusive 90-day, all-access FREE trial today.


Today's topic.

Alabama's IVF ruling. Last week, Alabama's Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of couples suing an Alabama storage facility under the state's wrongful death law after their frozen embryos were lost in an accident. The groundbreaking ruling, in a case dubbed LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C., treated the embryos as children who should be afforded certain legal protections, a theory championed by some anti-abortion groups that has now gotten its first validation from a major U.S. court.

Back up: The case combined two lawsuits filed by three sets of parents who underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures to have children and opted to have their remaining embryos frozen. IVF involves combining sperm and egg cells in a lab to create embryos, then implanting one or more of those embryos in a woman's uterus. Extra embryos are usually frozen and stored. In December 2020, the parents claimed that a patient entered an "unsecured doorway" at the Mobile, Alabama, hospital where the embryos were being stored and removed several embryos from the cryogenic nursery. The parents’ suit stated that the patient's hand was freezer-burned by the low temperatures, causing them to drop the embryos and kill them.

The parents sued for wrongful death, but a lower court dismissed the case, saying cryopreserved embryos do not fall under the definition of a "person" or "child." However, the state Supreme Court overruled the court’s decision, saying "extrauterine children" located outside the uterus when they are killed are, in fact, children under the state's Wrongful Death of a Minor Law.

That decision was further enforced by an amendment to the state constitution ratified in 2018, when Alabama voters passed a ballot measure that granted fetuses full personhood rights (though the amendment does not mention frozen embryos).

The law "applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation,” the court wrote. “It is not the role of this Court to craft a new limitation based on our own view of what is or is not wise public policy. That is especially true where, as here, the People of this State have adopted a Constitutional amendment directly aimed at stopping courts from excluding ‘unborn life’ from legal protection.”

The court did not go so far as to say the embryos have the same rights as people, nor did it rule that fetuses have constitutional rights. Rather, the court ruled that embryos are covered under both the wrongful death law and the fetal personhood amendment passed by Alabama voters in 2018.

Now what? Three major IVF clinics in Alabama immediately suspended services after the ruling, saying they needed time to figure out the legal implications. At least 11 states have broadly defined personhood as beginning at fertilization in their state laws, meaning a ruling like this could lead to similar lawsuits popping up across the country. About 2% of births in the U.S. are now done through IVF.

Over the weekend, both Democratic and Republican lawmakers in Alabama said the state needs legislation to protect IVF after the ruling, and Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said he has no intention of prosecuting families or providers involved in IVF.

While some anti-abortion groups are celebrating the ruling, others expressed concern about how it might impact families who are trying to have children but struggling to get pregnant. Abortion rights groups suggested the ruling is just the tip of the iceberg, and pointed to the words of Alabama'a Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker, who quoted the Bible in his opinion.

“Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself,” Parker wrote. “Even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.”

Today, we're going to examine some arguments from the right and left about this ruling, then my take.

What the left is saying.
The left is very concerned about the ruling, saying that it puts the entire practice of IVF in jeopardy.
Some say the legal implications imply that all frozen embryos must be implanted, as a discarded embryo could lead to a murder charge.
Others recognize that the ruling is somewhat narrow, but still fear its ramifications on women’s reproductive health.
In CNN, Mary Ziegler wrote about the "twisted irony" of the Supreme Court's ruling.

“In the United States today, recognizing the value of an embryo or fetus sets a precedent that no state can permit access to abortion — and that anyone who chooses abortion may be committing a crime," Ziegler said. "The irony in the Alabama court’s decision is that more Americans who want to be parents will be unable to achieve that dream. The ruling is extraordinary not only in declaring personhood before birth but also in applying the idea to embryos that haven’t been implanted in the uterus. But the ruling is not just bizarre; its consequences may be profound."

"If an embryo is a person, it can no longer be destroyed, donated for research or potentially even stored," she said. "Some abortion opponents argue that if embryos are persons, each one that is created must be implanted — and that would make even storing embryos for future use impermissible. If any of that comes to pass — and in Alabama, it likely will — that will transform how in vitro fertilization (IVF) works, and will mean a lower rate of success for Americans who already struggle to start a family."

In Slate, Mark Joseph Stern said the decision is "even worse than it sounds."

"Judges are once again playing doctor, to the extreme detriment of women trying to build families," Stern said. "It means that a medical professional who inadvertently damages or destroys a microscopic embryo has maimed or killed a legal person and is on the hook for punitive damages that could run into the millions... Any accidental damage to an embryo, and even a failed thawing or transfer, could trigger a calamitous wrongful death suit. And what about unused embryos? The Alabama Supreme Court’s decision suggests that if patients refuse to pay for their storage, the clinic must simply preserve them for free, forever, lest it get slapped with a suit."

"According to the majority, this amendment requires courts to interpret 'the rights of the unborn child equally with the rights of born children.' In practice, that appears to mean that every state law involving 'children' must be extended to embryos—including criminal laws, up to and including homicide," Stern said. "Does the destruction of an embryo, intentional or not, now constitute murder in Alabama? The majority ominously reserved this question for a future case."

In Vox, Rachel Cohen criticized the decision that "invoked God" to claim that frozen embryos count as children under state law.

"This decision and its very obvious fallout are a victory for an extremist wing of the anti-abortion movement I’ve been covering for the last two years. These particular activists believe in the radical idea of ‘fetal personhood,’ meaning they want to endow fetuses (and embryos) with full human rights and legal protection," Cohen said. “It’s also a reminder that the overturn of Roe v Wade is about more than just abortion.  It has ramifications for the full spectrum of reproductive health care — including birth control and fertility treatments."

"The ruling was somewhat narrow and did not weigh in on the future of other frozen embryos," Cohen said, and "there's a world where this decision could be relatively contained. The case is also not over; the state Supreme Court is sending it back to a district court for further litigation. In short, this victory for the fetal-personhood movement isn’t fully set, but medical providers and patients… are already left trying to piece together answers that nobody yet has."

What the right is saying.
The right supports the ruling, saying that the court is simply enforcing a standard defined by a state law
Some say the law should go further and end the entire practice of IVF, since it means the killing of unborn children.
Others note that IVF is very popular, and that legal protections for it would and should be coming.
In Newsweek, Josh Hammer said the ruling embodies America's legal heritage.

“The groaning from the left-wing media and political class can be easily explained: The Alabama case entails a dispute over the destruction of unborn human life, and there is no greater sacrament for the contemporary secular leftist than the destruction of unborn human life," Hammer said. "The Alabama Supreme Court had held in an uninterrupted line of cases that an unborn child constitutes a ’minor child’ under the state's wrongful death statute—regardless of stage of embryonic or fetal development. Crucially, neither the plaintiffs nor defendants contested this understanding, and the question was not before the court."

"The only legal question in LePage was thus whether the court should legislate from the bench and decree that which the Alabama Legislature had opted not to do itself: Read into the law an 'extrauterine exception’ that would retain the wrongful death statute's inclusion of unborn children developing in utero but remove legal protection for embryos developing outside the womb. The court, appropriately, declined to do so. That's it. That's the whole case."

In The Spectator, Ellie Gardey called IVF “evil” and applauded the Alabama supreme court.

"Several conservative leaders have responded to the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision by denouncing it," Gardey said. "Conservatives need to wake up to reality: In vitro fertilization is an ugly, evil practice that not only kills millions of children but also has led to a society in which we commodify children as assets to be bought and sold and women as bodies that can be purchased… Conservatives should pursue the end of IVF just as adamantly as abortion because IVF entails killing or freezing many children to create just one. This is because each in vitro treatment typically produces 12–15 children of a particular set of parents."

"Nikki Haley’s response to the Alabama Supreme Court decision suggests that some support for IVF is due to ignorance of its evil. Haley correctly maintains that embryos are human persons and rightly denounces the evil of murder. Yet she somehow misses the fact that there is no IVF without murder," Gardey wrote. "Other states have laws similar to Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. They, too, should recognize that those laws apply to embryos produced through IVF. It is the fastest way to slow the mass slaughter of innocents."

The Wall Street Journal editorial board said a supermajority supports IVF, including many conservative leaders, and you can expect Alabama to protect it.

"Mike Pence has a long political record on behalf of the prolife cause, and in his recent memoir he revealed that his wife underwent IVF. 'Karen and I struggled for more than five years with unexplained infertility,' he told CBS. 'I fully support fertility treatments and I think they deserve the protection of the law,'” the board said. “A memo circulated Friday by the National Republican Senatorial Committee pointed to survey data showing supermajority support for IVF. Donald Trump waded in on Truth Social. 'Like the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of Americans,’ he said, ‘I strongly support the availability of IVF for couples who are trying to have a precious baby.'"

"The same goes for leaders in Alabama," the board continued. "Given the clarification that’s likely coming, the pausing of IVF procedures in Alabama amid the legal uncertainty could produce needless heartache for couples. But with Roe gone, the people reign supreme on abortion policy, and that will be true on in-vitro fertilization."

My take.
Reminder: "My take" is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism, or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

Legally speaking, the court’s decision is a logical conclusion of Alabama state law and precedent.
Practically speaking, it’s a terrible result that will have wide-reaching implications for IVF.
Politically speaking, this is a disastrous outcome for Republicans.
Anytime we cover a controversial ruling like this, I like to break it into two parts: The legal arguments, and the practical outcome. Because this case was decided in an election year, I also think it's worth discussing the political ramifications of what just happened.

On the legal merits, this ruling is not that surprising. Alabama's high court has exercised some creative jurisprudence to get to the point where frozen embryos could be protected by law, as Vox's Ian Millhiser laid out. But still, this is both a logical extension of previous rulings, and the logical next phase of the anti-abortion movement's strategy. Alabama voters passed an unqualified fetal personhood bill, and the combination of that bill with pre-existing language about the wrongful death of children made this outcome perfectly plausible. Josh Hammer noted (under "What the right is saying") that the Alabama Supreme Court has held "in an uninterrupted line of cases" that unborn children are granted the same legal protections as minor children under the state's wrongful death statute, regardless of the stage of embryonic or fetal development.

In effect, the court was deciding whether to make an exception for "extrauterine" embryos — that is, embryos existing outside the uterus. I would not have been shocked or surprised had the court gone in either direction in the case, but ultimately the justices argued that the “natural, ordinary, commonly understood meaning” of the word child includes embryos — and argued this was true when the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act was passed in 1872 (state lawmakers then considered the unborn as full legal persons, the majority argued).

Whether or not you agree with that is irrelevant — the court was on pretty solid legal ground to make that interpretation.

As for the practical outcome, it’s simply terrible. Let’s start with the easy stuff first: I want to be clear that I don’t think the hospital was innocent. The details of this case are bizarre (who walks into a hospital and starts fishing around in freezers?), but the hospital seems at the very least negligent. It did not do a good job protecting a very precious thing that belonged to these parents. And the plaintiffs had good reason to pursue a court decision under the wrongful death statute: To collect more money. Justice Will Sellers, who dissented, said “these cases concern nothing more than an attempt to design a method of obtaining punitive damages.”

The ruling is also likely to have narrow implications. Alabama’s criminal homicide or assault law encompasses children in utero, so I doubt we see criminal cases start popping up where someone is charged with homicide for damaging a frozen embryo (again: this was a civil lawsuit). Alabama’s attorney general has already said no such prosecution will happen.

So why is the outcome terrible? Because it undermines the very process of bringing more children into this world. I know so many friends and family members who have benefited from IVF. When I read writing like Ellie Gardey's (under "What the right is saying") describing IVF as "evil," I have no way to reconcile that with my baby cousins or best friends' kids that are the product of IVF. It’s just impossible for me to see these children as the product of "evil" rather than of remarkable scientific advancements that have allowed more and more people to have families.

Of course, that is informed in part by my moral and ethical position on life — and the fact that I see inherently more value in a newborn baby than a frozen embryo. To me, a half dozen frozen embryos never becoming children is worth it for the one that does — especially when the alternative is no new children. I'm pro-family, pro-kids, pro-procreations, and I want as many people who desire it to have the opportunity to be parents.

This lawsuit undermines that — not theoretically, but practically. Alabama's IVF clinics immediately suspended operations after this ruling. Even though IVF clinics are allowed to continue to operate, they could now be confined to practices that we know don’t work as effectively and will with absolute certainty lead to ever fewer children being born. That is to say nothing of how much more expensive the already outrageously expensive treatments will become. Worse yet, we can now expect similar lawsuits to pop up in other states across the country.

Finally, on a political note, this is a disaster for Republicans. According to internal Republican polling, 85% of Americans support IVF. Even former Vice President Mike Pence, perhaps the most high-profile pro-life politician in America, supports IVF (Pence speaks openly about having had children through IVF). House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) also said he supports IVF treatment because it has been "a blessing for many moms and dads" who struggle with fertility. Republican legislators in Alabama are already playing defense, promising to safeguard IVF.

None of that, though, is going to stop Democrats from reminding voters that those assurances are only necessary because of a conservative legal movement. Abortion is the issue helping Democrats win elections right now, and this ruling legitimately represents the "nightmare scenario" many Democrats have warned voters about. Now, they'll be able to use it to their political advantage, no matter how many Republicans try to distance themselves from it.

Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2497
    • View Profile
Victim of its Own Success
« Reply #479 on: March 04, 2024, 11:48:19 AM »
Unintended consequences of the abortion effort:

Abortion is Running Out of Babies
Whom do you abort when no one is pregnant?
March 4, 2024 by Daniel Greenfield 21 Comments
Newsletter


[Make sure to read Daniel Greenfield’s contributions in Jamie Glazov’s new book: Barack Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America.]

The Biden administration is preparing to run the 2024 election on abortion. With a miserable economy and failure on every side, that is the one thing still left for the Democrats to run on.

But no generation has ever had less use for abortion than this one.

After the end of Roe v. Wade, Democrats warned of a decline in abortions, what they failed to mention was that abortions had been declining long before the Supreme Court decision.

After Roe v. Wade first came on the scene, abortions shot up all through the 80s and hit a peak in 1990 with 1.6 million. Then, just as the Democrats decided to go all-in on abortion, purging their pro-life wing, abortion rates crashed, and now struggle to pass the million mark.

The numbers are even more striking when accounting for the large U.S. population increase since 1990. According to the CDC, there were 345 legal induced abortions per 1,000 live births, 24 per 1,000 women, in 1990. By 2021, there were 204 abortions per 1,000 live births and 11.6 abortions per 1,000 women. The actual abortion rate had fallen by more than half.

There were over 4 million babies born in 1990 to a population of 250 million. In 2021 there were only 3.6 million babies born among a population of 330 million. It wasn’t abortion that accounted for much of the decline. The babies were not being aborted, rather they were not even coming into being.

Fewer of the young women in their twenties who used to get abortions need them anymore. 63% of men under 29 describe themselves as single, but only 34% of women under 29 do. 57% of those who say they’re single aren’t looking for a relationship or even casual dates. Only 13% of those who are looking, are seeking a committed relationship.

Rates of sexual intimacy have also dropped. 1 in 3 men in 2018 reported no intimate encounters. Even among teens, the number of high schoolers who ever had sex fell from 54% to 38% in 2019. (These numbers predate the pandemic which means nothing that happened during the pandemic had any impact on them.) There’s a decline in casual sex and intimacy among married couples, but it would be more accurate to say that it’s a decline in relationships.

It’s not just a male-female romantic decline either. Friendships are disappearing as are all sorts of in-person interactions. More people are single, not just as couples, but are lonely and alone.

Nothing Biden or any of the Democrats can do will save abortion from itself.

The war on the family has succeeded all too well, but what replaced it isn’t whatever perpetual orgy the sexual politics activists of the sixties imagined would ensue. There are endless varieties of new sexual identities emerging, men are getting castrated and women are getting mastectomies to try and pretend to be the other sex, but none of this is bringing people together.

The alternatives to the family have failed miserably even on their own terms. The family has been crippled, but in its place are lonely shallow narcissists who can’t tear themselves away from their phones long enough to connect to another human being. The country has come to inhabit the world of Edward Hopper’s ‘Nighthawks’, but the late night diner is a 5 inch screen.

There is a grim comedy to the endless fight to save abortion when it’s aborting itself.

The idea that the family would be replaced by casual relationships temporarily spurred a wave of them accompanied by the widespread use of abortions. But each succeeding generation became less likely to have any kind of relationships. Women turned off by casual sex and men by the demands of relationships drifted apart. Social media replaced real relationships with virtual ones offering online pornography and narcissism as substitutes for human intimacy.

And that is where we are now.

Democrats believe that it’s urgent to fight for abortion and to plant graphic pornography in schools, especially of the non-heterosexual kind, but apart from spurring a rash of teenage girls to mutilate themselves in the hopes of making themselves over to be boys, it’s not doing much to what may be the least sexual generation of teenagers since the 1880s.

In the 1990s, liberal men claimed that they didn’t want to get married until gay marriage was legal. Now liberal couples claim that they don’t want to have kids because of global warming. But marriage rates didn’t turn around when gay marriage was legalized and childbirths wouldn’t be significantly impacted if it was announced tomorrow that the climate is doing just fine.

Likewise, overturning Roe v. Wade didn’t have all that much of an impact on abortion.

Abortion, like marriage and childbirth, are all in decline. That’s also bad news for Biden and the Democrats because it means that there are fewer younger and traditionally more liberal voters.

In 1990, 18 to 24 year olds, more likely to vote Democrat, made up 10% of the population while those 50 and over, who are more likely to vote Republican, made up a quarter of the population. Now the 18 to 24 cohort has dropped down to 9% while the over 50 group makes up a third of the country.

Democrats have become more fanatical about abortion even as it becomes less relevant in a country without marriages, children or even intimacy. The real threat to abortion isn’t coming from Republicans or the Supreme Court, but a society with no more babies to abort.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/abortion-is-running-out-of-babies/

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
Abortion
« Reply #480 on: March 20, 2024, 03:39:54 PM »
The LEFT rallying the abortion queens

but the reality check is that more abortions have been performed than ever before:

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/ivf-abortion-access-could-shape-205407402.html

Essentially a non - issue except maybe in a few states,
but get the word out past the ministry of propaganda.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion & Life
« Reply #482 on: March 22, 2024, 06:24:16 AM »
Works for me.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18650
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion & Life
« Reply #483 on: March 24, 2024, 06:06:34 PM »
I thought our position was, it should be left to the states.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion & Life
« Reply #484 on: March 24, 2024, 07:07:48 PM »
Yes, I would prefer that it be left to the States, but I can live with Trump taking a 15 week position.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18943
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion & Life
« Reply #485 on: March 24, 2024, 09:00:04 PM »
"This is Trump seeking out the strategic middle ground in an effort to defend against the abortion extremist charge while at the same time exposing the Democrats and the “good Catholic” Joe Biden as the real extremists. They are the ones demanding that the U.S. remain one of only seven nations in the world allowing abortion all the way through pregnancy — just like China, Vietnam, and North Korea. Let’s face it: Our membership in that club is a disgrace.

Will Trump’s 15-week marker work? Time will tell."

I personally do not read that he is proposing a national law on this but just getting out in front of the bashing the LEFT will give him on abortion.

Seems like a wise political position to me
I want to win.




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18650
    • View Profile
Abortion Politics 2024
« Reply #488 on: May 24, 2024, 08:10:00 AM »
This from the Left, warning themselves not to be too smug on the abortion issue:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-is-counting-on-abortion-to-help-him-win-that-s-risky/ar-BB1mQfhN

Gallop:  34% believe abortion should be legal under all circumstance.  In other words, Republicans are getting hammered on the issue but only 34% agree with the current Democrat position.

To the Republicans I say, this is a moral issue.  You do not criminalize that which nearly half the people think is fine. 

Also to the Republicans, you wanted this sent back to the states and you won, finally, so stop trying to get a federal ban on it.

The vast majority are in between complete ban and no restrictions.  Reasonable time frame, reasonable exceptions is where state laws should be at this point.

6 weeks makes sense in fetal development (heartbeat) but doesn't take into account the mother's lack of awareness in the earliest phase of pregnancy.

Democrats were winning on this issue only as far as they could point to Republican overreach.

Key points in the article, Dobbs did not ban abortion, and most people believe it is (still) easy to get an abortion.

And like three wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner, the unborn were not polled on the issue.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2497
    • View Profile
Reason Piece on Old Gray Hag Piece on Dobbs
« Reply #489 on: May 28, 2024, 03:15:58 PM »
It appears the NYT had a big piece on Dobbs. Never heard of Tseytlin; seems like someone to watch (wonder if he’s in the lawfare crosshairs):

The Origin Story Of Dobbs
The Volokh Conspiracy / by Josh Blackman / May 28, 2024 at 4:56 PM
[A deep dive into how Dobbs came to be.]

The New York Times Magazine published a deep dive into the origin story of Dobbs. It covers a lot of ground, and based on my own recollection, it is fairly accurate. Here, I'd like to highlight a few items.

A lead protagonist in the story is former Wisconsin SG Misha Tseytlin. Misha may not be a household name, but he has been extremely influential over the years. For example, he was the brainchild behind the Obamacare challenge that became known as California v. Texas.(See profiles from the Houston Chronicle and Vox.) Earlier, at the West Virginia's Attorney General's Office, Misha helped develop some other influential cases that did not get as much press. More recently, Misha played an important role in the road to Dobbs. Shortly after the 2016 election, Misha began to develop an idea to target Roe: states should pass a fifteen-week abortion ban. This approach would allow the Court to eliminate the "viability" line, but would not require the Court to overrule Roe and Casey.

Now Tseytlin posed a theoretical question, according to people familiar with the discussion: What would happen if a state tried to pass an abortion limit at, say, 15 weeks? A slightly earlier restriction could force the court to examine the viability rule — and shake the very foundations of Roe. Could they push the number of weeks back just to the point at which their opponents would challenge it?

Tseytlin had a hard time believing that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. or Kennedy, who had come to inhabit a role as the court's swing vote, would strike down a ban that was just a few weeks earlier than 20. Many restrictions in Europe were drawn at 12 or 15 weeks.

Remember, at this point Justice Kennedy was still the fifth vote, so this incremental strategy had some value. But after Justice Barrett's confirmation in October 2020, the strategy shifted.

The article relays an internal debate about how to proceed: should Mississippi simply ask the Court to jettison the "viability" line, or should the state go all in to ask the Court to overrule Roe and Casey. I remember this debate well. Indeed, my widely-read post on the 2021 Federalist Society National Lawyer's Convention reflected this disagreement. The old guard, broadly defined, did not want to push the "overrule" Roe argument. The younger generation, broadly defined, thought this was the moment for change. Scott Stewart, the Mississippi SG, was talkin' bout my generation.

Stewart had to decide on a strategy. Fitch's petition for certiorari focused on upholding the Mississippi law and mentioned the possibility of overturning Roe only in a footnote: "If the Court determines that it cannot reconcile Roe and Casey with other precedents or scientific advancements showing a compelling state interest in fetal life far earlier in pregnancy than those cases contemplate, the Court should not retain erroneous precedent."

Stewart knew that a lot of lawyers would encourage him to continue down that easier path, to simply argue that Mississippi's law should be upheld. To not push for the complete overturn of Roe but to chip away — as the movement had for so many decades — and get the court to undo the viability standard. But for Stewart, these circumstances were different from those in the past. Trump had pushed their cause from the biggest bully pulpit in the land. Conservatives now had a majority on the court that seemed to be on their side.

It was not a moment for compromise, Stewart reasoned, according to people familiar with his thinking. It was a lesson he had learned from Thomas, his former boss and mentor, who was known to hold the line without deviation. He would be steadfast: Roe and Casey were wrong and must be reversed.

Even after Dobbs were argued, FedSoc lawyers over the age of fifty continuously fretted about the decision to push the Court to overrule Roe. I think it was some sort of collective PTSD from Bork, Casey, Harriet Miers, NFIB v. Sebelius, and more. They worried, correctly, about the aftermath of overruling Roe. In hindsight, Dobbs has been a political disaster for Republicans nationwide. But again, their concerns were pragmatic, and not legal. The yutes, as Joe Pesci would say, were content to let the heavens fall so justice could be done. Fiat justitia ruat caelum. And fall they did.

Finally, the articles identifies a list of cases that are primed for overruling: Employment Division v. Smith, CLS v. Martinez, and Troxel v. Granville. Seems like a good list!

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/28/the-origin-story-of-dobbs/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18650
    • View Profile
99.6% of abortions have nothing to do with rape
« Reply #490 on: June 14, 2024, 04:47:19 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 70502
    • View Profile
Re: Abortion & Life
« Reply #491 on: June 15, 2024, 06:30:35 AM »
Agree-- as long as real Due Process and proper evidence rules are followed.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18650
    • View Profile
Abortion & Life, fetal nutrition
« Reply #492 on: July 13, 2024, 12:17:27 PM »
Small investments in nutrition could make the world brainier. Many pregnant women and babies are malnourished—and not just in poor countries. Just as muscles need food and exercise to grow strong, the brain needs good food and stimulation to develop properly. The first 1,000 days after conception, known as the “golden window”, are crucial. From the third trimester to the second birthday, a million synapses a second are formed in a well-nourished brain, creating the foundation on which “all learning, behaviour and health depend”, notes Meera Shekar of the World Bank. In a malnourished one, fewer connections are created. And if the brain is chronically deprived during this period, the damage is irreversible. So a better diet for pregnant mothers and infants would eventually make humanity more intelligent. Alas, child malnutrition is far from being eradicated—and not just in poor, war-charred places like Congo. Many middle-income countries also have shockingly high rates. How much of a cognitive boost would the world get from feeding babies better? Precision is tricky, but scientists agree it would be huge. (Source: economist.com)

[Doug]  Why do we care what a worthless, random, killable, removable blob of cells have for nutrition? Are they saying that is a life in there? Who knew?  How long have they known this? And why do they call the woman a mother, does she necessarily have other children?

Of course it's a life in there.  24th Who are the deniers of science, again?

The same people who don't acknowledge there's a life in there tell you you should play Mozart for your baby. Weird.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2024, 01:55:40 PM by DougMacG »