the alabama abortion attack

[Aqua Buddha 14464]

Large numbers of people in Alabama voted for a guy who sexed up 12 year olds and now want to force those 12 year olds to carry his baby.

[DigglerontheHoof 20963]

47 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Mark my words, this will split the Republican party.  Prolly 40-50% of their voters are secretly pro-choice to some degree.  (Suburban women, for example.)  They never paid much attention to the carping by the pro-life crowd because they never considered Roe in serious jeopardy.  Now it is.

They're going to get their asses handed to them in 2020.

I read this and it makes sense.  I really want to believe it.  But, man, there are some backwards-ass folks out there when it comes to this.  When the curtain closes I can imagine a lot of women like you describe balking and voting R....just as a hedge against "going to hell". 

[WhatTheBuck 28696]

59 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

They’re obvious hypocrites. There’s no doubt about that. His point was that Twitter is not the best way to provide evidence of that. And he’s correct; it’s not the best way to provide evidence of that. There are plenty of other more credible avenues that’ll illustrate that point, probably even more strongly.

Like Facebook!

[TwiceHorn 31085]

In a nutshell, I think the two keys to Roe are:  reproductive autonomy is a fundamental right so the state has to demonstrate a compelling interest in regulating that right, and the regulation has to be narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means of implementing that compelling interest.  That latter test is called "strict scrutiny."

So, the two ways legally to chip at Roe are to diminish the fundamental right character of reproductive autonomy, or dilute the scrutiny (whether the state interest is compelling).

A more factual question is viability.  Currently, the state only has a compelling interest after the first trimester, when there is arguably a life to be protected.  That is kind of a different type of issue than the two bolded above.

I think the Supreme Court is unlikely to grant cert in an abortion case with a law like Alabama's because it presents so many issues.  Additionally, the state's compelling interest has to be supported by some kind of data or something other than "it's compelling, I swear."  This is where all the voter id laws fall apart.  The numbnuts states don't have sufficient evidence of voter fraud to demonstrate a compelling interest.  Similarly, they would have to have some kind of evidence supporting the interest in banning abortions for rape victims, for example.

As long as numbnuts states keep enacting these blunderbuss/omnibus abortion bills, they are probably not getting to 1 First Street, NE with it.

Edited May 16, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[tx 3 putt 75959]

It’s only a matter of time before Abbott / Goeb / Paxton pass a similar law in Texas 

[DigglerontheHoof 20963]

Just now, tx 3 putt said:

It’s only a matter of time before Abbott / Goeb / Paxton pass a similar law in Texas 

My guess is that Dan Patrick spearheads that effort.  Right up his alley. 

[Js1 84995]

2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

It’s only a matter of time before Abbott / Goeb / Paxton pass a similar law in Texas 

My only hope is Dennis Bonnen has enough Straus in him to grind the House to a halt over it.  

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

30 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Large numbers of people in Alabama voted for a guy who sexed up 12 year olds and now want to force those 12 year olds to carry his baby.

[Pancho 44183]

 

[DDD Dad 14144]

6 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

It’s only a matter of time before Abbott / Goeb / Paxton pass a similar law in Texas 

I believe a similar bill was introduced this session but I suspect it died.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In a nutshell, I think the two keys to Roe are:  reproductive autonomy is a fundamental right so the state has to demonstrate a compelling interest in regulating that right, and the regulation has to be narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means of implementing that compelling interest.  That latter test is called "strict scrutiny."

Bingo. These yahoos praising Alabama for this law and thinking it will be a tipping point for overturning Casey are hicks that don't understand how any of this works.

[Brisketexan 104226]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

I believe a similar bill was introduced this session but I suspect it died.

It died quickly.

It was.....aborted.

[Huckleberry 32660]

Large numbers of people in Alabama voted for a guy who sexed up 12 year olds and now want to force those 12 year olds to carry his baby.

https://local.theonion.com/abused-12-year-old-alabama-girl-doesn-t-think-she-can-h-1834787176

[Lidig8r 1846]

24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It died quickly.

It was.....aborted.

I see waht you did hear??

[American Swindle 102]

 

[wildcat09 29146]

47 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In a nutshell, I think the two keys to Roe are:  reproductive autonomy is a fundamental right so the state has to demonstrate a compelling interest in regulating that right, and the regulation has to be narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means of implementing that compelling interest.  That latter test is called "strict scrutiny."

So, the two ways legally to chip at Roe are to diminish the fundamental right character of reproductive autonomy, or dilute the scrutiny (whether the state interest is compelling).

A more factual question is viability.  Currently, the state only has a compelling interest after the first trimester, when there is arguably a life to be protected.  That is kind of a different type of issue than the two bolded above.

I think the Supreme Court is unlikely to grant cert in an abortion case with a law like Alabama's because it presents so many issues.  Additionally, the state's compelling interest has to be supported by some kind of data or something other than "it's compelling, I swear."  This is where all the voter id laws fall apart.  The numbnuts states don't have sufficient evidence of voter fraud to demonstrate a compelling interest.  Similarly, they would have to have some kind of evidence supporting the interest in banning abortions for rape victims, for example.

As long as numbnuts states keep enacting these blunderbuss/omnibus abortion bills, they are probably not getting to 1 First Street, NE with it.

Do you think Roe's strict scrutiny requirement still applies in light of Casey? I can see the argument that Casey's undue burden standard didn't get 5 votes, but I'm pretty sure it's been applied in subsequent cases. It's been awhile since I went over all the relevant cases though so I may not be remembering correctly.

[elfenix 34161]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

A more factual question is viability. 

viability is a nut i don't think the courts can crack.  is viability when science can spend $100,000+ to get a 50% chance of survival?  is it when the texas med center is equipped to handle severe premies but a regional hospital in north bumblefuck isn't?  is it when a suburban wife with great insurance and proper prenatal care could pop one out but an innercity teenager relying on planned parenthood would lose it?  i doubt that it's possible to make a rule that's going to give guidance to lawmakers and courts on a country wide, county by county basis. 

Edited May 16, 2019 by elfenix

[TwiceHorn 31085]

10 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Do you think Roe's strict scrutiny requirement still applies in light of Casey? I can see the argument that Casey's undue burden standard didn't get 5 votes, but I'm pretty sure it's been applied in subsequent cases. It's been awhile since I went over all the relevant cases though so I may not be remembering correctly.

I was gonna say, the Supremes have backslid some from "strict scrutiny" into "intermediate scrutiny" in other cases (but not usually fundamental right cases) and have kind of created this "undue burden" thing that's taking on a life of its own, at least in the mind of commentators (I originally took it to be a shorthand way of saying "failed strict scrutiny").  I still consider that to be mostly strict scrutiny, sort of adapted to abortion with two assumptions competing with reproductive autonomy, those being that states usually have a fairly compelling interest in protecting life, and abortion is a medical procedure, which states have at least some legitimate interest in regulating.

The probably scariest thing is the dissent in Casey, where Scalia opined that abortion should be analyzed under the rational basis test, which effectively overrules Roe on the privacy is a fundamental right angle.  All but Thomas of that dissent crew are gone.

I'm certainly not contending that it's impossible for the Supremes to undo it all, just seems to me rather unlikely.  Jimmyjazz among others asked what the legal framework for Roe or ditching Roe would be and I think I set it out.  There are some subtleties and nuances, though, as you point out.

[TwiceHorn 31085]

2 minutes ago, elfenix said:

viability is a nut i don't think the courts can crack.  is viability when science can spend $100,000+ to get a 50% chance of survival?  is it when the texas med center is equipped to handle severe premies but a regional hospital in north bumblefuck isn't?  is it when a suburban wife with great insurance and proper prenatal care could pop one out but an innercity teenager relying on planned parenthood would lose it?  i doubt that it's possible to make a rule that's going to give guidance to lawmakers and courts on a country wide, county by county basis. 

Agreed.  And if not the courts, the states probably can't generate "evidence" of viability much earlier than first trimester, which is why it remains the "bright line," even though viability is the test now.

[LonghornJudas 1089]

8 minutes ago, Pancho Negro said:

 

There's a lot of tackle in this thread, but specifically that Data for Progress tweet is being intentionally misleading and they should be called out for it.

Most [serious] discussions, like I think we're having here, involve a combination of personal rights, science & viability, and actually a little bit of non-religious based morality. Not sure the last part is really a term, but I think you know what I'm trying to say. Just as an example, specifically regarding trimesters. This is from Gallup.

	Should be legal	Should be illegal	Depends (vol.)	No opinion
	%	%	%	%
In the first three months of pregnancy
2018 May 1-10	60	34	4	1
2012 Dec 27-30	61	31	6	3
2011 Jun 9-12	62	35	2	1
2003 Jan 10-12	66	29	3	2
2000 Mar 30-Apr 2	65	31	2	2
1996 Jul 25-26	64	30	4	2
In the second three months of pregnancy
2018 May 1-10	28	65	4	2
2012 Dec 27-30	27	64	5	4
2011 Jun 9-12	24	71	3	2
2003 Jan 10-12	25	68	4	3
2000 Mar 30-Apr 2	24	69	4	3
1996 Jul 25-26	26	65	7	2
In the last three months of pregnancy
2018 May 1-10	13	81	4	2
2012 Dec 27-30	14	80	4	2
2011 Jun 9-12	10	86	2	1
2003 Jan 10-12	10	84	4	2
2000 Mar 30-Apr 2	8	86	3	3
1996 Jul 25-26	13	82	3	2

The majority of people find anything past the 1st trimester to be a no. The Depends group is certainly factoring in specifics, and rightly so, like mother's endangerment, rape, incest, child has Down, child has a life-threatening illness, etc.

I have a lot of agreement with @TwiceHorn and what was posted above, but I also agree with @elfenix on the viability deal. That can easily differ greatly between even neighboring counties.

Obviously, Alabama will move, but here's a rundown of abortion bans for easy reference, too.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Welcome to the party Missouri.

[elfenix 34161]

i wonder if there's any sort of argument to be had under the 10th amendment that abortion until the quickening was a right of english people as of the signing of the constitution, and so is reserved to the people. 

but then we'd get locked into 1780s' idea of society.  probably not worth it. 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

That Gallop poll is interesting in that the overwhelming majority of people believe abortion should be illegal after the first trimester. I've been led to believe that the majority of Americans are pro-choice up to birth. 

[Pancho 44183]

4 minutes ago, LonghornJudas said:

There's a lot of tackle in this thread, but specifically that Data for Progress tweet is being intentionally misleading and they should be called out for it.

Most [serious] discussions, like I think we're having here, involve a combination of personal rights, science & viability, and actually a little bit of non-religious based morality. Not sure the last part is really a term, but I think you know what I'm trying to say. Just as an example, specifically regarding trimesters. This is from Gallup.

	Should be legal	Should be illegal	Depends (vol.)	No opinion
	%	%	%	%
In the first three months of pregnancy
2018 May 1-10	60	34	4	1
2012 Dec 27-30	61	31	6	3
2011 Jun 9-12	62	35	2	1
2003 Jan 10-12	66	29	3	2
2000 Mar 30-Apr 2	65	31	2	2
1996 Jul 25-26	64	30	4	2
In the second three months of pregnancy
2018 May 1-10	28	65	4	2
2012 Dec 27-30	27	64	5	4
2011 Jun 9-12	24	71	3	2
2003 Jan 10-12	25	68	4	3
2000 Mar 30-Apr 2	24	69	4	3
1996 Jul 25-26	26	65	7	2
In the last three months of pregnancy
2018 May 1-10	13	81	4	2
2012 Dec 27-30	14	80	4	2
2011 Jun 9-12	10	86	2	1
2003 Jan 10-12	10	84	4	2
2000 Mar 30-Apr 2	8	86	3	3
1996 Jul 25-26	13	82	3	2

The majority of people find anything past the 1st trimester to be a no. The Depends group is certainly factoring in specifics, and rightly so, like mother's endangerment, rape, incest, child has Down, child has a life-threatening illness, etc.

I have a lot of agreement with @TwiceHorn and what was posted above, but I also agree with @elfenix on the viability deal. That can easily differ greatly between even neighboring counties.

Obviously, Alabama will move, but here's a rundown of abortion bans for easy reference, too.

And that’s fair but my initial thesis still stands which is FUCK ALABAMA AND THOSE INVRED FUCKSTICKS

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

Just now, Pancho Negro said:

And that’s fair but my initial thesis still stands which is FUCK ALABAMA AND THOSE INVRED FUCKSTICKS

[jimmyjazz 45428]

I was born and raised in Missouri.  I left the state for 3 reasons:  I had a nagging feeling that I wasn't wired the way the majority was, I hated the weather, and Texas girls are way cuter.

Turns out I was right.

Problem is, Texas is roughly as bad.  I'm thinking of canceling my retirement plans to relocate to Gulf Shores, AL.

Need beach info where Nazis aren't a thing.

 

[Foosters 17688]

4 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

That Gallop poll is interesting in that the overwhelming majority of people believe abortion should be illegal after the first trimester. I've been led to believe that the majority of Americans are pro-choice up to birth. 

Really? You thought a majority of Americans supported aborting a 9 month old fetus?

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

2 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Really? You thought a majority of Americans supported aborting a 9 month old fetus?

I get my news from Twitter.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Need beach info where Nazis aren't a thing.

Not here:

[Huckleberry 32660]

8 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Really? You thought a majority of Americans supported aborting a 9 month old fetus?

I think he's referring to the KNOWN FACT that anyone who has ever voted for a Democrat in their life is in favor of infanticide. I'm sure I can dig up a source somewhere.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I think he's referring to the KNOWN FACT that anyone who has ever voted for a Democrat in their life is in favor of infanticide. I'm sure I can dig up a source somewhere.

Nah. I would imagine that the poll would swing more towards 2nd trimester approval. I assume most are against 3rd trimester.

[DDD Dad 14144]

34 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I was born and raised in Missouri.  I left the state for 3 reasons:  I had a nagging feeling that I wasn't wired the way the majority was, I hated the weather, and Texas girls are way cuter.

Turns out I was right.

Problem is, Texas is roughly as bad.  I'm thinking of canceling my retirement plans to relocate to Gulf Shores, AL.

Need beach info where Nazis aren't a thing.

 

I wouldn't plan on moving to Buenos Aires

[Jive Turkey 12546]

43 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Welcome to the party Missouri.
 

The state that gave us Todd Akin.

 

[RDCanecutter 26198]

I'm gonna start having Caligula-style fun at family reunions.

[Brisketexan 104226]

"start?"

[Mo Horn 8779]

2 hours ago, Pancho Negro said:

 

And yet all the politicians in the states that pass this legislation will get easily reelected.  Voting has become a joke. 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

7 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

I'm gonna start having Caligula-style fun at family reunions.

Thanks, Cuz.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

3 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

And yet all the politicians in the states that pass this legislation will get easily reelected.  Voting has become a joke. 

 Yeah, but as @LonghornJudas pointed out, most of this legislation is in line with how their constituents think. The problem is that the extremes on either end are pushing the "all or nothing" message to pollute the truth. 

Except for Alabama. They have gone off the fucking rails.

[TexArcher 37414]

44 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

The state that gave us Todd Akin.

 

I'm becoming more and more convinced that no Republican has ever actually had sex with a woman or seen a vagina up close in real life.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Every time I read that “legitimate rape” mess my blood boils.

How exactly does he think a vagina works? Does he think we have steel shutters in our snatch? A pussy pistol? Teeth?

[freyguy 4243]

54 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

The state that gave us Todd Akin.

 

I try to legitimately rape the wife at 4am every morning.  Does that qualify?

[elfenix 34161]

Every time I read that “legitimate rape” mess my blood boils.

How exactly does he think a vagina works? Does he think we have steel shutters in our snatch? A pussy pistol? Teeth?

Vagina dentata, actually. Bite it off.

[4th&Five 41444]

nsiap 

 

[yoladu 4063]

20 hours ago, Steamboat1874 said:

I hope everyone of these assclowns' daughters get impregnated by a big black man.

Fuck them.

ha. that is cute. These are families of privilege; you think this law would stop them from getting a safe abortion for their daughter?

[Rimbo 25705]

Woman Walking Alone At Night Picks Up Pace After Spotting Truck Full Of Alabama Lawmakers Slowly Following Her

Spoiler

MONTGOMERY, AL—Quickening her pace as the vehicle flashed its brights, Alabama woman Alison Kyles, 29, reportedly hurried towards home Thursday after spotting a pickup truck full of Alabama lawmakers slowly following her. “At first, I thought I was just being paranoid when I saw that old Chevy full of state legislators creeping along behind me a few blocks back, but then they turned down the same alleyway as me and I started to panic,” said Kyles, who glanced over her shoulder in visible distress as she heard Senator Clyde Chambliss repeatedly revving the truck’s engine. “They’re clearly riled up after a day of legislating and are just out to cause some trouble. Oh, God, I think that’s Del Marsh leaning out of the passenger window and trying to holler something at me. Christ, I’m just going to keep my head down and hope all of them pass me by.” At press time, Kyles had broken into a full-on sprint after realizing in horror that she had accidentally turned onto the street directly in front of the Alabama State House.

 

[TDunk 590]

30 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Every time I read that “legitimate rape” mess my blood boils.

How exactly does he think a vagina works? Does he think we have steel shutters in our snatch? A pussy pistol? Teeth?

Pillowpants: Pussy troll.  Also, be weary of Listerfiend.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

There was a huge shift in suburban white women from 2016 to 2018.  It was pretty well documented.

Our county has voted republican historically.  Hillary won it in 2016.

[wildcat09 29146]

Since us law dorks have already turned some of the discussion this way, this is an interesting take I hadn't considered: 

Quote

 

Supreme Court watchers know all about "defensive certiorari denials." This is when a Justice votes to deny review of a case because she is worried that a grant will lead to a bad outcome on the merits.

The Alabama abortion law just enacted may present the opposite situation. The lower courts will make quick work of the statute, relying on Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Then Alabama will file a certiorari petition. At first glance, you might think that the four liberal Justices would vote against review, fearing that the Court will overrule these cases.

They may instead view this as the best vehicle for reconsidering Roe and Casey. Here's why. First, forcing the Court to consider this issue in a presidential election year will put more pressure on the Court's uncertain members about whether they want to walk the plank on this issue. Second, the Alabama law gives the Court no way to evade the basic question. Neither statutory construction nor a narrow ruling is possible for a law that expressly bans all abortions with only one exception. Third, the lack of exceptions and the stiff criminal penalties make the Alabama statute an especially unattractive case for the Justices interested in narrowing abortion rights.

All three of these reasons might explain why five Justices would deny review of Alabama's certiorari petition. But only four Justices need to vote yes. Indeed, you could even argue that they should do so after the District Court enters its inevitable judgment (assuming one party files a petition). After all, what will review in the Eleventh Circuit add to the story? Basically nothing. So don't be surprised if the case gets to the Court quickly.

 

I still doubt SCOTUS ever grants cert to Alabama but it'd be an interesting move if it was the liberals on the court that voted to do so to put Roberts in a tough spot.

[workswithseed 2028]

6 hours ago, TexArcher said:

Go ahead and share the quote.

Ralph Northam: You know, I wasn’t there, Julie, and I certainly can’t speak for Delegate Tran, but I would tell you — one, the first thing I would say is this is why decisions such as this should be made by [healthcare] providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. There are — you know when we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion …

Maybe he should have worded it better, but how he said this quote looks bad.

[Junior Miller 1502]

What's worse? Never living at all or being born to a horrifically stupid single mother who can't afford and doesn't want you? Being born to a mother in prison and immediately becoming a ward of the state? Being born to a woman who was raped and will resent every time she looks at you for your entire life and will probably neglect you? 

Yeah, the act of abortion is horrible and I dislike it, but I also know I don't live in a candyland Utopia and the alternatives of children suffering because they were born to unfit idiot parents is far worse. 

Republicans want more idiots they can manipulate to vote for them because their platform is one of ignorance and stupidity. We should be striving for a better educated and smarter society with fewer children in extreme suffering.