Roe v Wade struck down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is said to favor 16-week ban. Trying to do damage control.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/us/politics/trump-abortion-ban.html?unlocked_article_code=1.V00.rTB8.OskpvDdgO4IV&smid=url-share

While his allies are plotting to use the Comstock Act and other measures to essentially ban all abortions from conception. Next they’ll go after birth control, you can take that to the bank.

Also they won’t give exceptions for rape or incest. They’ll make 12 year olds carry their rapist’s baby to term.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/us/politics/trump-allies-abortion-restrictions.html

Behind the scenes, specific anti-abortion plans being proposed by Mr. Trump’s allies are sweeping and legally sophisticated. Some of their proposals would rely on enforcing the Comstock Act, a long-dormant law from 1873, to criminalize the shipping of any materials used in an abortion — including abortion pills, which account for the majority of abortions in America.

“We don’t need a federal ban when we have Comstock on the books,” said Jonathan F. Mitchell, the legal force behind a 2021 Texas law that found a way to effectively ban abortion in the state before Roe v. Wade was overturned. “There’s a smorgasbord of options.”

“I hope he doesn’t know about the existence of Comstock, because I just don’t want him to shoot off his mouth,” Mr. Mitchell said of Mr. Trump. “I think the pro-life groups should keep their mouths shut as much as possible until the election.”

Policies under consideration include banning the use of fetal stem cells in medical research for diseases like cancer, rescinding approval of abortion pills at the F.D.A. and stopping hundreds of millions in federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Such an action against Planned Parenthood would cripple the nation’s largest provider of women’s health care, which is already struggling to provide abortions in the post-Roe era.

The organizations and advocates crafting these proposals are not simply outside groups expressing wish lists of what they hope Mr. Trump would do in a second administration. They are people who have spent much of their professional careers fighting abortion rights, including some who were in powerful positions during Mr. Trump’s administration.

The plan also cites the statute number in a footnote justifying its recommendation that the F.D.A. stop “promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of longstanding federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”

Students for Life, an anti-abortion group, is not actively pushing Mr. Trump for a gestational ban, at any number of weeks. The group is instead focused on executive actions and changing policies though federal agencies, which they view as both more effective and more politically achievable. “This is probably the first election where D.O.J., H.H.S., F.D.A. are big-ticket items,” said Kristi Hamrick, a strategist for the group.

The Comstock Act made it a federal crime to send or deliver “obscene, lewd or lascivious” material through the mail or by other carriers, specifically including items used for abortion or birth control. The 1973 ruling in Roe, which recognized a federal right to an abortion, largely relegated the law to constitutional history.

Beyond reactivating the Comstock Act, conservatives believe they can roll back much of what the Biden administration has done to try to protect abortion rights. One example is a plan to eliminate guidance from the Biden administration requiring federally funded hospitals to perform lifesaving abortions, even in the 16 states with near-total bans. They also float ideas about how the Justice Department could direct U.S. attorneys not to prosecute people who violate laws prohibiting the obstruction of clinic entrances.

Republican gains in the courts could help lock in their goals. Many executive actions are undone or redone when a new administration takes power. But former officials, including Mr. Severino, are hopeful that the Supreme Court will rule soon to eliminate the Chevron deference, which he said could allow regulations they enact to remain in place even if a Democratic president were elected in the future.

This needs to be front page news and Dems need to be talking about it every day.

Won't happen. Dems will sit there with a thumb up their #%* and let Trump back in. Only thing that will stop this is Republicans knowing the political blowback would decimate them and telling the fanatics to knock it off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is said to favor 16-week ban. Trying to do damage control.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/us/politics/trump-abortion-ban.html?unlocked_article_code=1.V00.rTB8.OskpvDdgO4IV&smid=url-share

While his allies are plotting to use the Comstock Act and other measures to essentially ban all abortions from conception. Next they’ll go after birth control, you can take that to the bank.

Also they won’t give exceptions for rape or incest. They’ll make 12 year olds carry their rapist’s baby to term.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/us/politics/trump-allies-abortion-restrictions.html

Behind the scenes, specific anti-abortion plans being proposed by Mr. Trump’s allies are sweeping and legally sophisticated. Some of their proposals would rely on enforcing the Comstock Act, a long-dormant law from 1873, to criminalize the shipping of any materials used in an abortion — including abortion pills, which account for the majority of abortions in America.

“We don’t need a federal ban when we have Comstock on the books,” said Jonathan F. Mitchell, the legal force behind a 2021 Texas law that found a way to effectively ban abortion in the state before Roe v. Wade was overturned. “There’s a smorgasbord of options.”

“I hope he doesn’t know about the existence of Comstock, because I just don’t want him to shoot off his mouth,” Mr. Mitchell said of Mr. Trump. “I think the pro-life groups should keep their mouths shut as much as possible until the election.”

Policies under consideration include banning the use of fetal stem cells in medical research for diseases like cancer, rescinding approval of abortion pills at the F.D.A. and stopping hundreds of millions in federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Such an action against Planned Parenthood would cripple the nation’s largest provider of women’s health care, which is already struggling to provide abortions in the post-Roe era.

The organizations and advocates crafting these proposals are not simply outside groups expressing wish lists of what they hope Mr. Trump would do in a second administration. They are people who have spent much of their professional careers fighting abortion rights, including some who were in powerful positions during Mr. Trump’s administration.

The plan also cites the statute number in a footnote justifying its recommendation that the F.D.A. stop “promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of longstanding federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”

Students for Life, an anti-abortion group, is not actively pushing Mr. Trump for a gestational ban, at any number of weeks. The group is instead focused on executive actions and changing policies though federal agencies, which they view as both more effective and more politically achievable. “This is probably the first election where D.O.J., H.H.S., F.D.A. are big-ticket items,” said Kristi Hamrick, a strategist for the group.

The Comstock Act made it a federal crime to send or deliver “obscene, lewd or lascivious” material through the mail or by other carriers, specifically including items used for abortion or birth control. The 1973 ruling in Roe, which recognized a federal right to an abortion, largely relegated the law to constitutional history.

Beyond reactivating the Comstock Act, conservatives believe they can roll back much of what the Biden administration has done to try to protect abortion rights. One example is a plan to eliminate guidance from the Biden administration requiring federally funded hospitals to perform lifesaving abortions, even in the 16 states with near-total bans. They also float ideas about how the Justice Department could direct U.S. attorneys not to prosecute people who violate laws prohibiting the obstruction of clinic entrances.

Republican gains in the courts could help lock in their goals. Many executive actions are undone or redone when a new administration takes power. But former officials, including Mr. Severino, are hopeful that the Supreme Court will rule soon to eliminate the Chevron deference, which he said could allow regulations they enact to remain in place even if a Democratic president were elected in the future.

This needs to be front page news and Dems need to be talking about it every day.

Won't happen. Dems will sit there with a thumb up their #%* and let Trump back in. Only thing that will stop this is Republicans knowing the political blowback would decimate them and telling the fanatics to knock it off.

Yeah it’s totally up to the Democrats to stop everything! Even though the Republicans know perfectly well how unpopular their vagina and uterus obsession is.

Take it up with the “mainstream media” that also knows full well that abortion is the issue that’s going to drive millions to the polls, but for some reason never covers that. Face it. The GOP owns the media and they craft the messages.

[Anonymous]

This is what sending back to states (really to the people but red states are so gerrymandered that they are minority rule) gets you.

[Anonymous]

So now in AL pregnant moms can sue deadbeat dads for child support at the moment of conception and obtain health insurance for this embryo? Can the embryos be claimed as dependents on taxes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what sending back to states (really to the people but red states are so gerrymandered that they are minority rule) gets you.

Of course. It was just a matter of time. Infertile people in Alabama can just suck it. Too bad for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what sending back to states (really to the people but red states are so gerrymandered that they are minority rule) gets you.

Of course. It was just a matter of time. Infertile people in Alabama can just suck it. Too bad for them.

this is how they ban IVF without banning it. Too risky. You will be charged with murder for any embryos that don't take.
I'm making calls tonight to flip an AL house seat. Join me! https://www.mobilize.us/mobilize/event/604502/

[Anonymous]

IVF was bound to be doomed in many places as soon as roe was destroyed. So sad.

But something like 1 to 2 percent of American births uses IVF for conception going back many years. Those IVF people better be registered and voting against this trump disaster as if their lives depend on it. Because their lives did depend on having IVF treatments available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IVF was bound to be doomed in many places as soon as roe was destroyed. So sad.

But something like 1 to 2 percent of American births uses IVF for conception going back many years. Those IVF people better be registered and voting against this trump disaster as if their lives depend on it. Because their lives did depend on having IVF treatments available.

I've known practicing, pious Catholics who've done IVF. This will not sit well even with a lot of conservative voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IVF was bound to be doomed in many places as soon as roe was destroyed. So sad.

But something like 1 to 2 percent of American births uses IVF for conception going back many years. Those IVF people better be registered and voting against this trump disaster as if their lives depend on it. Because their lives did depend on having IVF treatments available.

I've known practicing, pious Catholics who've done IVF. This will not sit well even with a lot of conservative voters.

A lot of these types of women get around the religious concerns of IVF by only fertilizing 1 or 2 eggs at a time, or only the number that they are willing to transfer as embryos. I was in an infertility support group with a very religious woman who would only consent to fertilizing one egg at a time. She did "natural cycle" IVF instead of the typical protocol with stims that the rest of us were doing.

[Anonymous]

Well my Catholic sister in law fertilized all her embryos and has 4 in the bank. She keeps
Voting R down the ballot and I hope she wakes up soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IVF was bound to be doomed in many places as soon as roe was destroyed. So sad.

But something like 1 to 2 percent of American births uses IVF for conception going back many years. Those IVF people better be registered and voting against this trump disaster as if their lives depend on it. Because their lives did depend on having IVF treatments available.

I've known practicing, pious Catholics who've done IVF. This will not sit well even with a lot of conservative voters.

A lot of these types of women get around the religious concerns of IVF by only fertilizing 1 or 2 eggs at a time, or only the number that they are willing to transfer as embryos. I was in an infertility support group with a very religious woman who would only consent to fertilizing one egg at a time. She did "natural cycle" IVF instead of the typical protocol with stims that the rest of us were doing.

They are not going to be doing natural cycle or any other type of cycle when IVF clinics cease to exist in some states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well my Catholic sister in law fertilized all her embryos and has 4 in the bank. She keeps
Voting R down the ballot and I hope she wakes up soon.

Unless she lives in a deep red state she will be fine. I'm sure she's like, F those women living in red states, serves them right, eh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well my Catholic sister in law fertilized all her embryos and has 4 in the bank. She keeps
Voting R down the ballot and I hope she wakes up soon.

Unless she lives in a deep red state she will be fine. I'm sure she's like, F those women living in red states, serves them right, eh?

Yes a red state.
You guys don’t get it. Plenty of women don’t have a clue what their rights were, what they are now, and what they will become.
and there is an entire “conservative” media ecosystem keeping them in the dark.
And I’ve tried to explain it to her, but she just doesn’t get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well my Catholic sister in law fertilized all her embryos and has 4 in the bank. She keeps
Voting R down the ballot and I hope she wakes up soon.

Unless she lives in a deep red state she will be fine. I'm sure she's like, F those women living in red states, serves them right, eh?

Yes a red state.
You guys don’t get it. Plenty of women don’t have a clue what their rights were, what they are now, and what they will become.
and there is an entire “conservative” media ecosystem keeping them in the dark.
And I’ve tried to explain it to her, but she just doesn’t get it.

Do questions penetrate her consciousness at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well my Catholic sister in law fertilized all her embryos and has 4 in the bank. She keeps
Voting R down the ballot and I hope she wakes up soon.

Unless she lives in a deep red state she will be fine. I'm sure she's like, F those women living in red states, serves them right, eh?

Yes a red state.
You guys don’t get it. Plenty of women don’t have a clue what their rights were, what they are now, and what they will become.
and there is an entire “conservative” media ecosystem keeping them in the dark.
And I’ve tried to explain it to her, but she just doesn’t get it.

.."if you vote for trump then he will not protect your right to have IVF and you will not have IVF in your state"

This is an easy concept. I think the voters are capable of understanding it.