Things that suck

If someone spends ten bucks on a painting it’s because they need something to cover that ugly hole they knocked in the wall.

2 Likes

Roe V Wade was overturned. Thats a huge suck.

As a non-American, what does that mean?

Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court ruling in the 1970s that ruled that the Constitution of the US protected a woman’s right to an abortion (to a point). This ruling basically reversed that by basically saying “The court shouldn’t be the one making this call, it should be your lawmakers” if I understood it correctly.

It moves the protection from the federal level to the state level. IOW, each state gets to do whatever they want - they can ban it outright, ban it except under certain conditions, etc. Even worse, they can (and already have) written laws to not only ban the practice entirely, even in cases where the woman is very likely to die, but also file criminal charges anyone who seeks out a pregnancy termination, performs one, or even assists someone in having it done. In some cases, even making a person a criminal for helping a woman go to another state where it is still legal.

Think that last part can’t happen? The governor of Massachusetts signed an Executive Order today stating that the state will not extradite MA health care providers who perform these procedures for women who travel from states where they’re illegal. That wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t possibility.

Yeah Overturning Roe vs. Wade is a big deal. Personally, I don’t think abortion should be used casually, but there are circumstances where it should be an option. The mother’s life being in danger, the child being so damaged that a short, unpleasant life is its lot, rape, etc.

Oh, I’m aware this is a huge dumpster fire of a ruling that deserves to be nuked from orbit…especially given the state of “lawmakers” in the US at the moment.

Roe was terrible precedent in the first place. RBG herself stated that it overreached, or that its influence was greater than what was meant. The politicians had 40+ years to codify it into law one way or another… This is why you don’t let the judicial branch create laws.

If Roe v Wade had happened a bit earlier I wouldn’t be here. The train ticket to Illinois was affordable, but the additional time to think about it literally saved my life.

Also, the people flashing the Handmaiden’s Tale images are way off base here. No one forces most of the women who get abortions to get pregnant in the first place. Hell, from some stuff I have read a woman is potentially more likely to have a forced abortion than a forced pregnancy.

Safe, legal, rare.

Does that mean that it’s okay to force a woman to bear a child in all cases?

What if it’s rape? Should she be forced to remember that trauma every day for a minimum of 9 months?

What if the child is going to have a short, health ridden life? She should be forced to go into destitution to pay for the medical costs and still lose the child?

What if the child will be severely crippled in some way? Should the parents be forced into destitution to care for the child?

What if her life is in danger? It’s always the child’s life over the mother’s? Or what if not getting an abortion means that both are likely to die?

These are just a few instances where abortion should be an option. I don’t like abortion, and personally, if I had had an unwanted pregnancy, I wouldn’t have had one, but that doesn’t mean that it should be illegal.

4 Likes

Of the same mind here.

We probably should move this into its own thread.

I have my own opinions about it, but a new thought occurred to me this morning: Are there pro-life supporters that have absolutely no problem with the preventative birth control we practice on dogs and cats in the form of spaying and neutering? That’s mandatory in many cases and they aren’t given any say in the matter.

That’s a complete red herring. If there is already established case law, then why would you create another one? It’s not necessary, because the law already exists.
The reasoning may have been a bit faulty, but the result was correct. And Alito’s opinion had just as much faulty reasoning in it, possibly more.

That’s a bit misleading about what she actually said. She thought it was too sweeping, but that’s because she thought a woman’s right to choose would be better done gradually. She also thought it was the wrong case to decide women’s rights, because a woman’s right to choose was fundamentally about equality and not privacy.

Nope.
Ohio has a bill currently in progress that requires doctors to try to reimplant an extopic pregnancy into the uterus or face murder charges. You may have confidence that this loony tunes bill will be struck down, but I don’t.
I’ve already posted about the woman who got charged with murder for a miscarriage. Yes, her charges were dropped, but do you really think she’s going to be the only one?

Partly agree with that. The problem is the first part. Banning abortion doesn’t stop abortions, it just stops safe abortions. I’d prefer if abortions weren’t used as a contraceptive device, however I strongly believe that is entirely the woman’s choice. She can ask for opinions from anyone she wants, but nobody else should get any veto rights.

2 Likes

Well, actually… :wink:

Ohio’s governor DID want doctors to reimplant ectopic pregnancies, but the law passed without that clause because the procedure does not exist. I believe they reworded it to be that the Dr has to make every effort to maintain the life of the fetus/cells, but does allow for abortion if the life of the mother is in danger. Which is pretty much every ectopic pregnancy.

Not how law works. If you can’t reason through to the correct decision using current law then it isn’t a good ruling regardless of the outcome. The federal government ruling on something that is controlled at the state level without constitutional backing is going to fail. Congress has relied on the Court to do what they don’t have the guts for.

Just like Obergefell, everyone should have been fighting their ass off to pass laws to legalize same sex marriage even after the Court decided it, it’s a shaky ruling and now everyone is freaked out it could be next. And since it appears the Court wants to clean up questionable legal decisions regardless of the popularity of the decision it probably is.

And just like the 2A decision last week the counter argument will have a lot of emotional content with little actual legal fact against it.

Both parties have a vested interest to not solve these issues.

Up to a certain point, I agree. I think the father should have a voice, but I don’t know how to reasonably give him one. I think that would enable men pushing women to abort, and that is an objectively bad thing.

And I think after a certain point the abortion is a murder. I don’t know what that point is. I think it’s past 16 weeks, but before 25 or so. I also think the Mother’s life should take precedence by default.

I see a potential roll back of federal overreach and a possibility that Congress will take up their jobs again, want to change something, make a change through the system and back it up with constitutional law. I hope it happens, it will also make local elections even more important as states are given back some of their power.

Handmaiden’s Tale is about women being forced to be impregnated. It’s a big difference between being forced to create a baby, and being forced to keep one you willingly made. (I don’t agree with the no abortion ever crowd, so this point is just clarifying.)

And since the constitution refers to equality more often that privacy that’s what should have happened. The right result wrong way crowd has kept important issues like this alive and fighting much longer than they should have been.

Thanks for that information, I didn’t realise it had already passed, I thought it was still on its way through. I’m glad that particular idiocy about the ectopic pregnancy was removed. I know there was no way it could have been implemented, but since when has that ever stopped lawmakers?

Not how law should work, but it quite often is nonetheless.

I can understand your point of view, and I partly agree with you, but there are so many provisos on that.
I’ve heard a lot of things said about how barbaric late term abortions are and stuff like that, but the fact is that late term abortions are not taken lightly. It’s pretty much always because there are serious health complications either for the mother or the baby. Is it still murder if the mother is likely to die if the pregnancy goes to term? Is it murder if the child’s brain stem hasn’t developed and there is no way it can survive outside the womb?
In practical terms, I think it should be when a child is a legal entity able to receive child support / tax concessions etc - in other words, after birth.

Only superficially.
The bigger picture is that it’s about controlling women - it’s a religious fundamentalist regime that treats women as property of the state.
In that sense, controlling what women can or can’t do with their bodies certainly is Handmaid’s Tale territory. Forcing women to carry to term the result of a rape, stopping women from using contraception, these are (in my opinion) fundamentally wrong.

The author of the novel of Handmaid’s Tale has said there’s certainly connections.

Looks like fire season has started early this year. (Cali native)

Oh dear. Now some bright spark will start a wildfire :frowning:

1 Like

If only there was some well established science that could inform the state on how to handle fires. Something about cleaning dead brush out and doing controlled burns.

Seriously, good luck. I’ll just keep dodging tornadoes out here.

I mean these fires happened on cleaned farm land but sure go off on an inaccurate talking point.
The main fire i have seen was at the dump where some one dumped stuff they shouldnt have. But sure the dead brush was the cause mmhmm yep.

1 Like