Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what would an overturning of Roe mean for Assisted Reproductive Technology? I had 6 embryos from my IVF. All were genetically defective so I did not proceed with implantation. Will the destruction of un-implanted embryos be illegal in a post-Roe world?

Claire McCaskill just said that there’s already a law on the books in Missouri that states that personhood begins at conception. She says that would make IVF illegal.

Why would that make IVF illegal?

Never thought through the consequences of your vile politics, did you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what would an overturning of Roe mean for Assisted Reproductive Technology? I had 6 embryos from my IVF. All were genetically defective so I did not proceed with implantation. Will the destruction of un-implanted embryos be illegal in a post-Roe world?

Claire McCaskill just said that there’s already a law on the books in Missouri that states that personhood begins at conception. She says that would make IVF illegal.

Why would that make IVF illegal?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what would an overturning of Roe mean for Assisted Reproductive Technology? I had 6 embryos from my IVF. All were genetically defective so I did not proceed with implantation. Will the destruction of un-implanted embryos be illegal in a post-Roe world?

Claire McCaskill just said that there’s already a law on the books in Missouri that states that personhood begins at conception. She says that would make IVF illegal.

Missouri republicans would say well families can just adopt all the unwanted babies that will be born after abortion is overturned. Which won’t happen. There is a dearth of babies given up for adoption because more women or their relatives are choosing to keep them. That won’t change.

There will be a lot more profoundly disabled babies who would have otherwise been aborted. Hopefully those people are willing to open their arms for those babies

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what would an overturning of Roe mean for Assisted Reproductive Technology? I had 6 embryos from my IVF. All were genetically defective so I did not proceed with implantation. Will the destruction of un-implanted embryos be illegal in a post-Roe world?

Claire McCaskill just said that there’s already a law on the books in Missouri that states that personhood begins at conception. She says that would make IVF illegal.

Missouri republicans would say well families can just adopt all the unwanted babies that will be born after abortion is overturned. Which won’t happen. There is a dearth of babies given up for adoption because more women or their relatives are choosing to keep them. That won’t change.

It might, though, if there are simply too many. Imagine if every junkie popped out five opioid addicted kids, or every college woman gave birth to her oops pregnancy. I think part of what is motivating these laws is that supply has gone down at the same time natural fertility is going down. Hard to live God’s commandment to be fruitful and multiply when you couldn’t afford to marry until 35, or you have so many forever chemicals in your blood your gametes are fried.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what would an overturning of Roe mean for Assisted Reproductive Technology? I had 6 embryos from my IVF. All were genetically defective so I did not proceed with implantation. Will the destruction of un-implanted embryos be illegal in a post-Roe world?

Claire McCaskill just said that there’s already a law on the books in Missouri that states that personhood begins at conception. She says that would make IVF illegal.

Missouri republicans would say well families can just adopt all the unwanted babies that will be born after abortion is overturned. Which won’t happen. There is a dearth of babies given up for adoption because more women or their relatives are choosing to keep them. That won’t change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what would an overturning of Roe mean for Assisted Reproductive Technology? I had 6 embryos from my IVF. All were genetically defective so I did not proceed with implantation. Will the destruction of un-implanted embryos be illegal in a post-Roe world?

Claire McCaskill just said that there’s already a law on the books in Missouri that states that personhood begins at conception. She says that would make IVF illegal.

Good. Let the politicians who have been passing laws without having to care about the consequences deal with the fallout when the case they have been railing against gets overturned.

Anonymous wrote:So what would an overturning of Roe mean for Assisted Reproductive Technology? I had 6 embryos from my IVF. All were genetically defective so I did not proceed with implantation. Will the destruction of un-implanted embryos be illegal in a post-Roe world?

Claire McCaskill just said that there’s already a law on the books in Missouri that states that personhood begins at conception. She says that would make IVF illegal.

Anonymous wrote:So what would an overturning of Roe mean for Assisted Reproductive Technology? I had 6 embryos from my IVF. All were genetically defective so I did not proceed with implantation. Will the destruction of un-implanted embryos be illegal in a post-Roe world?

It will depend on the laws of your state. My embryos are in Maryland!

Anonymous wrote:So what would an overturning of Roe mean for Assisted Reproductive Technology? I had 6 embryos from my IVF. All were genetically defective so I did not proceed with implantation. Will the destruction of un-implanted embryos be illegal in a post-Roe world?

Yes, but religious adoption forms will be happy to rehome your embryos to a proper family for a hefty fee. If they are genetically defective, I would order them destroyed today.

So what would an overturning of Roe mean for Assisted Reproductive Technology? I had 6 embryos from my IVF. All were genetically defective so I did not proceed with implantation. Will the destruction of un-implanted embryos be illegal in a post-Roe world?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

3 Supreme Court picks lost

1 held by McConnell.
1 pushed by Trump to get Kennedy to retire early.
1 jammed through by McConnell.


All, unprecedented.

President Trump, Donald
Barrett, Amy Coney Ginsburg Sep 29, 2020 52-48 No. 224 C Oct 26, 2020
Kavanaugh, Brett Kennedy Jul 10, 2018 50-48 No. 223 C Oct 6, 2018
Gorsuch, Neil M. Scalia Feb 1, 2017 54-45 No. 111 C Apr 7, 2017


3 picks. Because Hillary lost to trump.

You can rewrite facts .

3 picks because McConnel is a much better politician than Schumer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Damn, the rightwing justices are really ready to trash stare decisis.

It will completely upend the American legal system, law school training, etc.

This is wildly radical and anarchist.

They need to be careful. If they overturn stare decisis and start the slippery slope that some Constitutional rights can be abridged, you can bet that there will be new restrictions on 2A from liberal states. If SCOTUS determines that RvW can be abridged, then there is no protection for 2A any longer. As long as the right to bear arms is preserved, states can then instituted many restrictions on what types of guns, how to register guns, when and where users are allowed to carry, etc.

If stare decisis no longer protects Roe or Casey, then it definitely will not protect Heller.

I'd take that deal, just because thousands of lives are lost to gun violence every year and not that many lives will be lost to back-alley abortions. As a woman, I know it's a stinky deal and fundamentally unfair, since any civilized country has BOTH abortion rights AND gun control... but gun control would at least salvage an otherwise horrific decision.

You are assuming that the partisan hacks currently on the court are consistent and principled. They are not. Their principles extend as a far as they need to reliably deliver right wing needs. If the right wing wants gun ownership stripped from black men, they will figure out a way to do it while preserving the rights of white men. Guarantee it. Hacks gonna hack.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

3 Supreme Court picks lost

1 held by McConnell.
1 pushed by Trump to get Kennedy to retire early.
1 jammed through by McConnell.


All, unprecedented.

President Trump, Donald
Barrett, Amy Coney Ginsburg Sep 29, 2020 52-48 No. 224 C Oct 26, 2020
Kavanaugh, Brett Kennedy Jul 10, 2018 50-48 No. 223 C Oct 6, 2018
Gorsuch, Neil M. Scalia Feb 1, 2017 54-45 No. 111 C Apr 7, 2017


3 picks. Because Hillary lost to trump.

You can rewrite facts .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Damn, the rightwing justices are really ready to trash stare decisis.

It will completely upend the American legal system, law school training, etc.

This is wildly radical and anarchist.

They need to be careful. If they overturn stare decisis and start the slippery slope that some Constitutional rights can be abridged, you can bet that there will be new restrictions on 2A from liberal states. If SCOTUS determines that RvW can be abridged, then there is no protection for 2A any longer. As long as the right to bear arms is preserved, states can then instituted many restrictions on what types of guns, how to register guns, when and where users are allowed to carry, etc.

If stare decisis no longer protects Roe or Casey, then it definitely will not protect Heller.

I'd take that deal, just because thousands of lives are lost to gun violence every year and not that many lives will be lost to back-alley abortions. As a woman, I know it's a stinky deal and fundamentally unfair, since any civilized country has BOTH abortion rights AND gun control... but gun control would at least salvage an otherwise horrific decision.

I hate annoying liberals in power who implement stupid lax criminal policy that basically exacerbate crime (violence interrupters, less policing in violent communities or attempts to defund, youth rehab act dc, shoplifting in California etc). I also hate the identity politics that’s ever present and through which all policy must be viewed through these days and the resulting Balkanization effects it engenders. I also hate showy performative wokeness and people with yard signs who claim to be super virtuous but then hypocritically send their kids to private or not the local high schools while also using NIMBYIsm to fight the polices they support.

That said.

Imagine how fked up the right wing wet dream of a Christian nation, with no abortion and guns everywhere would be. These folks are insane. They also have a terrible attitude toward legalization of drugs and employing harm reduction for sick people like sabaxone for overdoses etc. I know they recently came around on marijuana but that’s not that brave. I want legalization of all drugs and prostitution to get them out of the hands of cartels or at least better oversight.

The point being, both sides kind of suck these days. However, the repubs using annoying “moral values” need to stfu when they talk about bodily autonomy. Most of these fks won’t get vaccinated because of “my body my choice”.

The only thing these states have going is low taxes for wealthy retirees. They also understand investing and saving and walk Street better than most democrats. Anyway, the moral is there is no moral or whatever. It all sucks. The rest of the world is watching.