Political Roundtable Part XXX

[montestewart]

[url][/url]

I never voted for Nobody Until I was over 35 years old but don't tell anybody

You voted for Nobody too?

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

[url][/url]

I never voted for Nobody Until I was over 35 years old but don't tell anybody

You voted for Nobody too?

I clearly did in the presidential election where the choices were Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. There was another candidate who I don't even remember the name that's who I voted for.

Some nobody is who I voted for. I knew that Hawaii was going to vote Democratic either way and my vote really did not matter. I just was never a fan of Hillary

[Zonkerbl]

SCOTUS discussed Mississippi's forced birth law yesterday. ACB infamously says "meh, you can just adopt"

Apparently there is, in fact, a shortage of babies to adopt. That's by design apparently, adoption agencies are focused on encouraging families to stay together, adopting only as a last result.

So what that all means is forcing women to give birth probably won't lead to many more babies put up for adoption.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/10/adopt-baby-cost-process-hard/620258/

[Ruzious]

SCOTUS discussed Mississippi's forced birth law yesterday. ACB infamously says "meh, you can just adopt"

Apparently there is, in fact, a shortage of babies to adopt. That's by design apparently, adoption agencies are focused on encouraging families to stay together, adopting only as a last result.

So what that all means is forcing women to give birth probably won't lead to many more babies put up for adoption.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/10/adopt-baby-cost-process-hard/620258/

No doubt - I'd love to see more adoption of US babies in the US. Because of the shortage, my sister paid a small fortune to adopt an 8 month old in China - which btw could not have turned out better. But God love ACB - cutting the LEGAL abortions doesn't mean adoptions of US kids will increase at anything close to a 1 to 1 relationship.

[closg00]

I heard Susan Collins was concerned about this MS court case *sarcasm*

[nate33]

Abortion should be legal, but the time window during which it should be legal should be minimized to the shortest that is reasonably possible. I don't know when a "clump of cells" becomes a human life with rights, but I think we should err on the side of assuming that threshold to be pretty early, while still allowing a woman enough time to recognize that she is pregnant and to decide what she is going to do about it.

I'd like to see an updated Supreme Court decision guarantee that abortions are legal during the first 6 weeks and abortions are illegal after 12 weeks, unless the life of the mother is at stake. What the rules are between weeks 6 and 12 should be up to the States.

[Zonkerbl]

what pro choice advocates have been trying to communicate is that the decision to abort/adopt/raise a child has life altering consequences, so laws that tilt that decision one way or another are massive intrusions on women's freedom to make decisions as persons that are legally endowed with constitutional rights. "Meh just adopt" has been the tone deaf answer to this the entire time. Basically what that says to me is you don't consider women to be people.

[Zonkerbl]

Abortion should be legal, but the time window during which it should be legal should be minimized to the shortest that is reasonably possible. I don't know when a "clump of cells" becomes a human life with rights, but I think we should err on the side of assuming that threshold to be pretty early, while still allowing a woman enough time to recognize that she is pregnant and to decide what she is going to do about it.

I'd like to see an updated Supreme Court decision guarantee that abortions are legal during the first 6 weeks and abortions are illegal after 12 weeks, unless the life of the mother is at stake. What the rules are between weeks 6 and 12 should be up to the States.

Welcome back Nate!

I think a large part of the discussion at the SCOTUS yesterday was how difficult it is for the SCOTUS to set an arbitrary line like you're proposing. That's why viability works as a practical solution - there's really no other milestone that everybody agrees on. "Yes after viability the fetus should be considered a person with rights."

SCOTUS will probably rule that there's nothing set in stone about viability and if MS can prove 15 weeks doesn't impose "undue burdens" then that should be ok.

Look forward to that though, because defining what "undue burdens" means is just as hard.

[nate33]

what pro choice advocates have been trying to communicate is that the decision to abort/adopt/raise a child has life altering consequences, so laws that tilt that decision one way or another are massive intrusions on women's freedom to make decisions as persons that are legally endowed with constitutional rights. "Meh just adopt" has been the tone deaf answer to this the entire time. Basically what that says to me is you don't consider women to be people.

Or perhaps they are saying that fetuses are people too.

[Zonkerbl]

what pro choice advocates have been trying to communicate is that the decision to abort/adopt/raise a child has life altering consequences, so laws that tilt that decision one way or another are massive intrusions on women's freedom to make decisions as persons that are legally endowed with constitutional rights. "Meh just adopt" has been the tone deaf answer to this the entire time. Basically what that says to me is you don't consider women to be people.

Or perhaps they are saying that fetuses are people too.

And that would be great if that's what they said. But they don't. "Meh just adopt, you're just a baby vessel who is the property of your husband" is what I hear. Know your audience! "I understand that rules restricting abortion have significant effects on women's rights and it is not a decision we take lightly, because we take women's constitutional rights seriously" might be a better message than "meh you can just adopt, what's the big deal."

Anyway you can't argue that fetuses are people before viability. In a practical sense, I mean, it's just too nuanced a discussion for your average SCOTUS judge. It's too easy for lawyers to make an argument either way. Viability works. That's why we use it.

It's something you can agree on without being of a certain religion. It's an objective standard.

[nate33]

what pro choice advocates have been trying to communicate is that the decision to abort/adopt/raise a child has life altering consequences, so laws that tilt that decision one way or another are massive intrusions on women's freedom to make decisions as persons that are legally endowed with constitutional rights. "Meh just adopt" has been the tone deaf answer to this the entire time. Basically what that says to me is you don't consider women to be people.

Or perhaps they are saying that fetuses are people too.

And that would be great if that's what they said. But they don't. "Meh just adopt, you're just a baby vessel who is the property of your husband" is what I hear. Know your audience! "I understand that rules restricting abortion have significant effects on women's rights and it is not a decision we take lightly, because we take women's constitutional rights seriously" might be a better message than "meh you can just adopt, what's the big deal."

Anyway you can't argue that fetuses are people before viability. In a practical sense, I mean, it's just too nuanced a discussion for your average SCOTUS judge. It's too easy for lawyers to make an argument either way. Viability works. That's why we use it.

It's something you can agree on without being of a certain religion. It's an objective standard.

Viability is a bit of a muddled line as technology keeps pushing viability back earlier and earlier.

[Zonkerbl]

Or perhaps they are saying that fetuses are people too.

And that would be great if that's what they said. But they don't. "Meh just adopt, you're just a baby vessel who is the property of your husband" is what I hear. Know your audience! "I understand that rules restricting abortion have significant effects on women's rights and it is not a decision we take lightly, because we take women's constitutional rights seriously" might be a better message than "meh you can just adopt, what's the big deal."

Anyway you can't argue that fetuses are people before viability. In a practical sense, I mean, it's just too nuanced a discussion for your average SCOTUS judge. It's too easy for lawyers to make an argument either way. Viability works. That's why we use it.

It's something you can agree on without being of a certain religion. It's an objective standard.

Viability is a bit of a muddled line as technology keeps pushing viability back earlier and earlier.

"This fetus can survive on its own" is an empirically verifiable fact. It's about as crystal clear as you can get. And it doesn't matter that it used to be 24 weeks and now it's 22 weeks. It didn't used to be true that 22 week old fetuses were viable. Now, due to advances in science, they are. That's a *good* thing, it shows that "viability" is an objective idea that is robust to technological advance.

[nate33]

"This fetus can survive on its own" is an empirically verifiable fact. It's about as crystal clear as you can get. And it doesn't matter that it used to be 24 weeks and now it's 22 weeks. That's a good thing, imo. It didn't used to be true that 22 week old fetuses were viable. Now, due to advances in science, they are. That's a *good* thing, it shows that "viability" is an objective idea that is robust to technological advance.

Either way, I think the viability threshold should be end of the permissible window for abortion, not the beginning. If viability is 22 weeks, then no abortion should be permitted anywhere after 22 week. Abortions can still be outlawed at much earlier times by the States under the premise that a pre-viable fetus still has rights.

I just don't think abortions should be banned prior to 6 weeks. Ultimately, there has to be some "wiggle room" for women who are impregnated against their will, and if we are going to allow very early abortion for rape, there is no logical rationale not to allow it at that same early threshold for any reason.

[Zonkerbl]

"This fetus can survive on its own" is an empirically verifiable fact. It's about as crystal clear as you can get. And it doesn't matter that it used to be 24 weeks and now it's 22 weeks. That's a good thing, imo. It didn't used to be true that 22 week old fetuses were viable. Now, due to advances in science, they are. That's a *good* thing, it shows that "viability" is an objective idea that is robust to technological advance.

Either way, I think the viability threshold should be end of the permissible window for abortion, not the beginning. If viability is 22 weeks, then no abortion should be permitted anywhere after 22 week. Abortions can still be outlawed at much earlier times by the States under the premise that a pre-viable fetus still has rights.

I just don't think abortions should be banned prior to 6 weeks. Ultimately, there has to be some "wiggle room" for women who are impregnated against their will, and if we are going to allow very early abortion for rape, there is no logical rationale not to allow it at that same early threshold for any reason.

The trick is, if you do what you say, you will, undeniably, be violating the constitutional rights of women. There's no disputing that. Now, the Constitution allows you to make tough decisions sometimes when rights of different people conflict. But there has to be some sort of process. Up til now we've had a kind of "viability guided" process. If we're going to throw that out, what evidence, fact-driven process is going to replace it?

[Zonkerbl]

Although with Roberts no longer the swing vote who knows what the SCOTUS will rule. Maybe they'll say "screw it, since it's impossible to do this empirically, let political opinion in different states determine what's acceptable" and basically just throw Roe v. Wade out completely. Will be interesting to see what they do in June, five months before the midterm elections.

[pancakes3]

Roe states that: 1) women have a right to abortion the same as they have to any other medical procedure, and is covered under their constitutional right to privacy; 2) the state's interests in preserving life doesn't kick in until after the first trimester. Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 changed the trimester bright line to viability.

The problem with viability is that it's on a spectrum. 0% chance before 22 weeks, with stepped increases for every subsequent week up until birth (25% chance at week 23, 50% chance at week 25, 90% chance at week 26).

Then the waters get muddied further with brainwave (5 weeks) heartbeat (10 weeks) or even electrical-activity-around-a-grouping-of-cells-that-eventually-becomes-the-cardiovascular-system-that-is-being-characterized-as-a-heartbeat (6 weeks).

[Zonkerbl]

Timing could not be worse for Republicans. At least Biden was smart enough to rip off the Afghanistan bandaid early enough to theoretically recover somehow by the midterms.

No matter what the SCOTUS decides Dems will be FURIOUS and turnout in November could be massive. If it's enough to hold onto the house and add a few seats in the senate, the Dems might be able to eliminate the filibuster, add DC as a state, and pack the Supreme Court before 2024. Then Republicans could lose in an instant everything they've been maneuvering for over the last forty years.

Well, I'm not holding my breath - one thing the GOP has shown consistently is they are waaaaaaaaay better at this than the Dems are. But I can still hope.

[nate33]

Timing could not be worse for Republicans. At least Biden was smart enough to rip off the Afghanistan bandaid early enough to theoretically recover somehow by the midterms.

No matter what the SCOTUS decides Dems will be FURIOUS and turnout in November could be massive. If it's enough to hold onto the house and add a few seats in the senate, the Dems might be able to eliminate the filibuster, add DC as a state, and pack the Supreme Court before 2024. Then Republicans could lose in an instant everything they've been maneuvering for over the last forty years.

Well, I'm not holding my breath - one thing the GOP has shown consistently is they are waaaaaaaaay better at this than the Dems are. But I can still hope.

The notion that the abortion debate helps Democrats is outdated. The Boomers were the last staunchly pro-choice generation. Successive generations have been significantly more pro-life. For example, here is how various age groups view the "heartbeat law"


https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/443879-poll-majority-of-voters-think-6-week-abortion-bans-arent-too

Also, the gender gap is not nearly as wide as perceived. On the question of the heartbeat law, 47% of women considered it too restricted and 44% of men did. The majority of both genders think it's "just right" or "too lenient".

[Zonkerbl]

Oh yes Republicans, please continue to believe that liberal women don't have strong opinions about abortion. You're probably right about that k sign:

[Ruzious]

"This fetus can survive on its own" is an empirically verifiable fact. It's about as crystal clear as you can get. And it doesn't matter that it used to be 24 weeks and now it's 22 weeks. That's a good thing, imo. It didn't used to be true that 22 week old fetuses were viable. Now, due to advances in science, they are. That's a *good* thing, it shows that "viability" is an objective idea that is robust to technological advance.

Either way, I think the viability threshold should be end of the permissible window for abortion, not the beginning. If viability is 22 weeks, then no abortion should be permitted anywhere after 22 week. Abortions can still be outlawed at much earlier times by the States under the premise that a pre-viable fetus still has rights.

I just don't think abortions should be banned prior to 6 weeks. Ultimately, there has to be some "wiggle room" for women who are impregnated against their will, and if we are going to allow very early abortion for rape, there is no logical rationale not to allow it at that same early threshold for any reason.

Please tell me you didn't really mean to say 6 weeks. That's a complete non-starter, and you know it.