Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?

Someone said earlier that unless you want to adopt a child you should not speak for those who are being killed/murdered, we have three adopted daughters and one of those have an adopted daughter. scream all you want if one, just one innocent is saved all this will be worth it.
 

Tish said:
I have a question.
With this overturned law, will that include the morning-after pill?
Click to expand...

I've wondered that as well. Plan to get a box to have on hand for my niece. She and her boyfriend of one year are 17, both virgins but that can quickly change. We've discussed that it's hours...sometimes 24 before fertilization occurs and what the morning after pill does. I'd already thought about getting a box in case she ever needs it and doesn't have $40.00. Am for sure going to now.
 
SeniorBen said:
A fetus doesn't feel any pain, nor is it sentient, nor can it scream.
Click to expand...
Very early on, maybe, except for the screaming. Do some research at the different stages of development because there's plenty out there to prove you wrong. And no, I'm not going to do it for you. If you're entrenched in your beliefs enough to make that erroneous, strongly declarative statement, my guess is your mind is closed to anything that doesn't support your position.

Fetal viability increases dramatically around 27 weeks and the odds improve each week. Those babies feel pain and are sentient. And as soon as they pop out, they can scream.
 

Last edited:
This ruling will have increasingly negative effects, as time passes. Many of the poorer women will not be able to get the help they want, and will be having more children that they cannot afford. This will add to the poverty issues, and the need for increased welfare services. Then, many of these "unwelcome" children will be neglected and wind up adding to our nations crime problems in another couple of decades.
 
Don M. said:
This ruling will have increasingly negative effects, as time passes. Many of the poorer women will not be able to get the help they want, and will be having more children that they cannot afford. This will add to the poverty issues, and the need for increased welfare services. Then, many of these "unwelcome" children will be neglected and wind up adding to our nations crime problems in another couple of decades.
Click to expand...
Anyone who doesn't have that vision is choosing to be blind
 
Although I am past the age of needing an abortion, if offered a free million dollar home with the caveat that I'd have to live there, in a state that outlawed or severely restricted abortion rights, I'd decline the offer.

In fact, I won't even travel to those states. People need to stand up for their beliefs and vote in elections and also vote with their wallets.
 
Ruthanne said:
There have been no riots as of last night. Women are very upset though and rightly so.

I have mixed feelings about the issue. In my child bearing years the only way I would terminate would be in the case or sexual assault or detrimental to health.

I feel women should not use abortion as a means of contraception but rather use other means unless it is a case of sexual assault or health risk. Then I think abortion would be warranted.

The problem now will be women getting illegal abortions that can kill them. And that is a big problem.
Click to expand...
Or in the best case scenario, render them unable to have children in the future if/when they are ready to take care of them.
 
Don M. said:
The mid-term elections, this Fall, should be interesting. Recently, it looked like Inflation and soaring Fuel costs would be uppermost in many voters minds. But, now, with this ruling, Abortion may rank high on many voters list of concerns.
Click to expand...
Let's hope so. It is June. The mid-terms are in November. People have very short memories. If they still cannot put food on the table and pay for gas in a few months I am not very hopeful. Let's just hope they remember this moment in time as it will affect them for decades to come.
 
I do feel that abortion should be available for those who want/need it. For me it would not be a choice. We had a hard time having a child, there are so many out there that would love to be able to adopt. I would have been happy to adopt an older child. We have many in out extended family that were adopted and they are no less considered family or loved.
 
AnnieA said:
Very early on, maybe, except for the screaming. Do some research at the different stages of development because there's plenty out there to prove you wrong. And no, I'm not going to do it for you. If you're entrenched in your beliefs enough to make that erroneous, strongly declarative statement, my guess is your mind is closed to anything that doesn't support your position.

Fetal viability increases dramatically around 27 weeks and the odds improve each week. Those babies feel pain and are sentient. And as soon as they pop out, they can scream.
Click to expand...
I've done the research. You say I'm wrong but don't offer any evidence because you don't have any, which is why you resorted to a personal attack. People who can support their arguments with facts don't need to attack the person.

That said, I will support my claim, since it's so easy in this day and age. Here is one from NIH (National Institutes of Health) that supports it explicitly...

Fetuses cannot be held to experience pain. Not only has the biological development not yet occurred to support pain experience, but the environment after birth, so necessary to the development of pain experience, is also yet to occur.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/

Simple as that.
 
AnnieA said:
Very early on, maybe, except for the screaming. Do some research at the different stages of development because there's plenty out there to prove you wrong. And no, I'm not going to do it for you. If you're entrenched in your beliefs enough to make that erroneous, strongly declarative statement, my guess is your mind is closed to anything that doesn't support your position.

Fetal viability increases dramatically around 27 weeks and the odds improve each week. Those babies feel pain and are sentient. And as soon as they pop out, they can scream.
Click to expand...
I have a niece who was born over 50 years ago at 28 weeks. She recently stood as a candidate for election to our federal parliament.
 
Things that have happened before and may happen a lot more in coming days...

I have edited this article for the sake of brevity. The link is at the bottom.

In 4 November 2019, TV stations across California blasted Chelsea Becker’s photo on their news editions. The “search was on” for a “troubled” 25-year-old woman wanted for the “murder of her unborn baby”, news anchors said, warning viewers not to approach if they spotted her but to call the authorities. The next day, Becker was asleep at the home she was staying in when officers with the Hanford police department arrived.

“The officer had a large automatic weapon pointed at me and a K-9 [dog],” Becker, now 28, recalled in a recent interview. “I walked out and surrendered.”

Two months before, Becker had had a stillbirth at a California hospital, losing a baby boy at eight months pregnant. The Kings county prosecutor in the central valley charged her with “murder of a human fetus”, alleging she had acted with “malice” because she had been struggling with drug addiction and the hospital reported meth in her system.

Becker’s attorneys argued there was no evidence that substance use caused the stillbirth and California law did not allow for this type of prosecution in the first place. Still, she spent 16 months in jail awaiting trial before a judge dismissed the charges.

Becker’s nightmare offers a preview of the kinds of criminal cases that could become commonplace in the US if the supreme court, as expected after the leak of a draft opinion last month, officially overturns Roe v Wade. In the states that outlaw abortion, advocates warn, pregnancy losses more broadly will be treated as potential crimes, including in cases of wanted pregnancies. Even with Roe in effect, women have repeatedly faced arrest and charges for their pregnancy outcomes.

“These prosecutions will escalate at an extremely rapid clip if Roe is reversed,” said Emma Roth, staff attorney with the National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW), a non-profit group that supported Becker in her legal battle. “A lot of people don’t realize that pregnant people are already facing criminalization all across the country, including in blue states like California. All it takes is a rogue district attorney.”

Becker had struggled with addiction and at the time of her stillbirth was also battling homelessness, occasionally forced to sleep on a motel stairwell. On 9 September 2019, she had been preparing for the birth of her fourth child, a baby boy whom she had already named, when her family had to call an ambulance to rush her to the hospital. She was uncontrollably bleeding when she arrived at the Adventist Health Hanford hospital, a faith-based organization, and roughly two hours later lost the child.

She briefly held her baby, she said, and wondered whether he could have survived if the hospital had done an emergency C-section. She also wondered why she received blood transfusions only hours after she had arrived in distress. The next morning, she said, she discovered that the hospital had left her baby on a table at the other end of the room for hours on end. She also learned that hospital staff had called the police.

Police records show that hospital staff reported the stillbirth as “suspicious” to police and found Becker tested positive for meth, though her attorneys say she never consented to a drug test. Later, Becker agreed to meet police at her mother’s house where an officer interrogated her about her drug use. The police recommended she be prosecuted for murder, and weeks later, took her to jail.

Becker awaited trial in jail while struggling to process her grief. Behind bars, she was unable to receive proper counseling, she said in a recent statement to lawmakers: “I was afraid anything I might have said to any of them would be used against me in court, so I suffered alone.”

While in jail, she lost custody of her son, who was adopted. Her two other children were already in the custody of a relative. Becker was prosecuted under Section 187 of the California penal code, which defines murder as “the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought”. Lawmakers added “fetus” to the statute in 1970 in response to the case of a man who had attacked a pregnant woman, causing a stillbirth.

Becker was prosecuted by the Kings county district attorney, Keith Fagundes, the only prosecutor in California who has filed charges for a stillbirth in the last three decades. The year before, Fagundes had also filed a murder case against Adora Perez, after she delivered a stillborn baby at the same hospital in Hanford and police also alleged that meth use had caused the loss. The law does not apply to an act “consented to by the mother of the fetus”, and the primary author of the legislation, a Republican lawmaker, later testified that the mention of fetus was solely intended for prosecuting “a third party’s willful assault on a pregnant woman”.

But Fagundes, and the police officials who investigated Perez and Becker, have used it to argue that women, in some cases, should be jailed.

Becker’s lawyers argued that she could not legally be prosecuted under Section 187. They also noted that at the time of the stillbirth, Becker had three separate reproductive infections, all of which can cause stillbirth. The pathologist who concluded Becker’s stillbirth was due to “acute methamphetamine toxicity” admitted in court that he was not aware of the infections when he conducted the autopsy and had not reviewed her medical records before his determination.

A judge dismissed the case in May 2021. Adora Perez, the other woman prosecuted by Fagundes, spent four years behind bars before her case was dismissed earlier this year.

She was jailed for losing a pregnancy. Her nightmare could become more common | US justice system | The Guardian
Click to expand...
 
Tish said:
I have a question.
With this overturned law, will that include the morning-after pill?
Click to expand...
At least in some states (probably all, I'm guessing) that outlaw abortion, I think medication abortions will be outlawed also, if nothing else because they make up such a significant percentage of total surgical and medication abortions.

"In 2019, 56% of legal abortions in clinical settings occurred via some form of surgery, while 44% were medication abortions involving pills, according to the CDC.

...Guttmacher’s preliminary data from its forthcoming study says that 2020 was the first time that more than half of all abortions in clinical settings in the U.S. were medication abortions."

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/24/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-u-s-2/
 
Well, looky here. The Washington Post has this headline:

Roe’s gone. Now antiabortion lawmakers want more.​


On the heels of their greatest victory, antiabortion activists are eager to capitalize on their momentum by enshrining constitutional abortion bans, pushing Congress to pass a national prohibition, blocking abortion pills, and limiting people’s ability to get abortions across state lines.

At the National Association of Christian Lawmakers (bolding is by me) conference in Branson, Mo., on Friday several dozen state legislators from across the country brainstormed ideas — all in agreement that their wildly successful movement would not end with Roe v. Wade.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...on-lawmakers-restrictions-state-legislatures/
 
Warrigal said:
I have a niece who was born over 50 years ago at 28 weeks. She recently stood as a candidate for election to our federal parliament.
Click to expand...
I was born at 28 weeks myself... Stillborn. The Doctors revived me against all the odds... and here I am still at 67, I bet they'd wonder to this day what happened to me, because it was very rare for a baby born so early back in the mid last century to survive
 
Last edited:
StarSong said:
Although I am past the age of needing an abortion, if offered a free million dollar home with the caveat that I'd have to live there, in a state that outlawed or severely restricted abortion rights, I'd decline the offer.

In fact, I won't even travel to those states. People need to stand up for their beliefs and vote in elections and also vote with their wallets.
Click to expand...
Some would argue that this is exactly what the repeal of R v W allows - the citizens of each state to determine what the laws regarding abortion will be in that state. The voter in Texas apparently want one thing, and the voters in NY want another. Now the voters in both states have a voice.
 
dseag2 said:
Let's hope so. It is June. The mid-terms are in November. People have very short memories. If they still cannot put food on the table and pay for gas in a few months I am not very hopeful. Let's just hope they remember this moment in time as it will affect them for decades to come.
Click to expand...
Well, the deep blue states (California, NY, etc) already have laws in place that allow abortion and the deep red states (Texas, etc) now have laws that restrict it. Not sure how it will work out in the typical "battleground" states (Ohio, PA, etc), In the end I don't think it will have a major impact on the midterms. We'll know in 5 months!
 
The complacency of American generations born post baby boom is largely responsible for this. They presumed that the women's rights they've enjoyed came easily and were a lock solid guarantee. It took nothing more than a stacked Supreme Court to undo what so many fought and marched FOR YEARS to attain.
Click to expand...
Even Congress failed to act on the issue leaving it to the Supreme Court. Probably because abortion rights unresolved was more important to them as a political football than that it was as an actual right. I've always doubted the permanence of the right to abortion, because I understood it was just an opinion of the Court consisting of biased judges, not a guarantee as a law.

Even if Democrats gain the needed majority, I don't think they will act on it. Right now, they are calling for donations for the upcoming elections with abortion rights as the message. That will be forgotten once the elections are over, and they can quit thinking about it. I'd like to be proven wrong, but I'm just going by what I've observed about politics from the past. It's doubtful they will ever get the needed seats in the Senate anyway, and Democrats don't vote as a block like Republicans in the senate.

And the country has been growing more conservative, autocratic, and divided for many years now.
 
JustDave said:
Even Congress failed to act on the issue leaving it to the Supreme Court. Probably because abortion rights unresolved was more important to them as a political football than that it was as an actual right. I've always doubted the permanence of the right to abortion, because I understood it was just an opinion of the Court consisting of biased judges, not a guarantee as a law.

Even if Democrats gain the needed majority, I don't think they will act on it. Right now, they are calling for donations for the upcoming elections with abortion rights as the message. That will be forgotten once the elections are over, and they can quit thinking about it. I'd like to be proven wrong, but I'm just going by what I've observed about politics from the past. It's doubtful they will ever get the needed seats in the Senate anyway, and Democrats don't vote as a block like Republicans in the senate.

And the country has been growing more conservative, autocratic, and divided for many years now.
Click to expand...

growing more conservative ?

you really think so ? I would say just the opposite , I know this area in which I live was at one time a deep conservative stronghold . Now it has turned completely democratic liberal. It started way back in the early 70's when the democratic colalition won over the local city council.

No I'm not picking a fight with you about it <grin> Your comment just got my attention .
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top