Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
09/13/2024 13:56
Subject: Re:Roe v Wade struck down
Just stumbled across a couple of things this morning:
Regarding Trump's claim that babies are aborted after birth (yes, he did say that, I think during the debate and definitely during some rallies):
In the 1980s, DHHS Office for Civil Rights established guidance defining failure to treat infants born with severe medical conditions (disabilities) as a violation of Section 504. This led to mandatory reports to CPS as well as anonymous tips that hospitals were violating 504 when parents opted against medical interventions shortly after birth. In one case, parents turned down the possibility of surgically correcting an esophageal defect to allow the infant to feed. The baby died 6 hours later, so it is unlikely that that was the only problem--babies do not die within 6 hours for lack of nutrition AFAIK. Anyway, this went to the Supreme Court, which imposed an injunction against enforcing this rule; the injunction has never been overturned. They did not see evidence of a pattern of disability discrimination as opposed to parents and doctors making difficult decisions in difficult circumstances. In other words, the federal govt was not allowed to force families into medical interventions that would be ultimately futile and cause further suffering. (There was a Democratic majority in the House but a Republican majority in the Senate and Reagan was president. At the time, there were a lot of anti-abortion Democrats, often Catholics--my parents had friends who were deeply involved in Dem politics and equally involved in right-to-life politics. Most anti-choice people I have met, when discussing babies born with severe medical conditions with little chance of even surviving medical intervention, immediately opt to the position that the parents should have the right to decide whether to pursue such interventions as common sense).
I was researching 504 stuff when I happened across the decision. Bowen v. American Hosp. Ass'n, 476 U.S. 610 (1986)
In ND, a state judge just ruled the state's abortion ban as unconstitutional. It has no effect as the state's only abortion clinic, located less than a mile from Minnesota, moved across the border to Minnesota when the state's trigger law went into effect after Dobbs. State still plans to appeal and calls him an activist judge. Part of the issue the judge saw was the rape and incest exception, since the law did not provide any rational explanation why those fetuses are less valuable that those conceived outside of those situations.
Of course, the rape and incest exceptions really say that forced birth is a consequence women victims of those actions are excused from since it was not their fault, meaning continuing the pregnancy is a punishment other women and girls deserve.
Regarding Trump's claim that babies are aborted after birth (yes, he did say that, I think during the debate and definitely during some rallies):
In the 1980s, DHHS Office for Civil Rights established guidance defining failure to treat infants born with severe medical conditions (disabilities) as a violation of Section 504. This led to mandatory reports to CPS as well as anonymous tips that hospitals were violating 504 when parents opted against medical interventions shortly after birth. In one case, parents turned down the possibility of surgically correcting an esophageal defect to allow the infant to feed. The baby died 6 hours later, so it is unlikely that that was the only problem--babies do not die within 6 hours for lack of nutrition AFAIK. Anyway, this went to the Supreme Court, which imposed an injunction against enforcing this rule; the injunction has never been overturned. They did not see evidence of a pattern of disability discrimination as opposed to parents and doctors making difficult decisions in difficult circumstances. In other words, the federal govt was not allowed to force families into medical interventions that would be ultimately futile and cause further suffering. (There was a Democratic majority in the House but a Republican majority in the Senate and Reagan was president. At the time, there were a lot of anti-abortion Democrats, often Catholics--my parents had friends who were deeply involved in Dem politics and equally involved in right-to-life politics. Most anti-choice people I have met, when discussing babies born with severe medical conditions with little chance of even surviving medical intervention, immediately opt to the position that the parents should have the right to decide whether to pursue such interventions as common sense).
I was researching 504 stuff when I happened across the decision. Bowen v. American Hosp. Ass'n, 476 U.S. 610 (1986)
In ND, a state judge just ruled the state's abortion ban as unconstitutional. It has no effect as the state's only abortion clinic, located less than a mile from Minnesota, moved across the border to Minnesota when the state's trigger law went into effect after Dobbs. State still plans to appeal and calls him an activist judge. Part of the issue the judge saw was the rape and incest exception, since the law did not provide any rational explanation why those fetuses are less valuable that those conceived outside of those situations.
Of course, the rape and incest exceptions really say that forced birth is a consequence women victims of those actions are excused from since it was not their fault, meaning continuing the pregnancy is a punishment other women and girls deserve.
Anonymous
Anonymous
09/13/2024 11:53
Subject: Re:Roe v Wade struck down
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
The brown shirts doing exactly what we thought they would. I’m trying to remember from the relevant threads what the Repubs tried to pretend they’d be doing, but clearly… being the investigative arm of the fascists.
+1 All this does is intimidate people from signing ballot petitions in the future, i.e. submit to everything our gerrymandered legislature wants and don’t dare to try for anything different.
It also fires people up to try to get these overreaching mofos out of office
+1
Luckily Americans are not going to stand for this. The gop can intimidate and gerrymander and cheat, but they are not going to win. Not sure we’ll reach the tipping point before November but we are getting very close.
Anonymous
09/13/2024 11:50
Subject: Re:Roe v Wade struck down
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
The brown shirts doing exactly what we thought they would. I’m trying to remember from the relevant threads what the Repubs tried to pretend they’d be doing, but clearly… being the investigative arm of the fascists.
+1 All this does is intimidate people from signing ballot petitions in the future, i.e. submit to everything our gerrymandered legislature wants and don’t dare to try for anything different.
It also fires people up to try to get these overreaching mofos out of office
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
09/10/2024 20:35
Subject: Re:Roe v Wade struck down
Anonymous wrote:
The brown shirts doing exactly what we thought they would. I’m trying to remember from the relevant threads what the Repubs tried to pretend they’d be doing, but clearly… being the investigative arm of the fascists.
+1 All this does is intimidate people from signing ballot petitions in the future, i.e. submit to everything our gerrymandered legislature wants and don’t dare to try for anything different.
Anonymous
Anonymous
09/10/2024 11:34
Subject: Re:Roe v Wade struck down
The brown shirts doing exactly what we thought they would. I’m trying to remember from the relevant threads what the Repubs tried to pretend they’d be doing, but clearly… being the investigative arm of the fascists.