Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

On abortion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • myboynoah
    replied
    Just horrible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Northwestcoug
    replied
    Here is a sobering article on the inevitability of maternal deaths when severe limits are placed on abortion:

    https://www.propublica.org/article/g...-thurman-death

    tl:dr: A Georgia mother of a 6 year-old went to North Carolina to have a medically induced first trimester abortion, since it's illegal in Georgia. The NC clinic was already overflowing with out of state patients, so this woman didn't get adequate follow-up. She returned home and began having signs of a septic abortion (when products of conception haven't been completely expelled and an infection starts). Doctors delayed a D&E, the standard of care with retained products of conception, under the cloud of Georgia's law that makes it illegal to use any instrument “with the purpose of terminating a pregnancy". Since the poorly written law makes it unclear what part of gynecologic care for fetal death is still legal in that state, the standard of care was delayed until it was too late. She then died from a completely preventable illness.

    This literally exemplifies the fact that abortions will continue to happen irrespective of laws. And the fallout is reverberating to non-abortion care. Witness half the maternal-fetal medicine specialists leaving Idaho once their restrictive abortion law was passed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Non Sequitur
    replied
    Originally posted by Shaka View Post

    I think it should be tied to the interpretation of the Constitution. However, the political leanings of the justices is going to be a factor in that interpretation. It's been that way for a loooooooooooong time. Don't act like liberal justices are the bastion of non-political interpretation of the constitution.
    There is a huge difference between political leanings and political loyalty. I would hate it if I thought a liberal justice ruled based on party loyalty.

    Leave a comment:


  • Northwestcoug
    replied
    Originally posted by Moliere View Post

    If you put term limits on scotus you’ll make it even more partisan than it is now.
    This has been said before but I still don’t understand it. Nominations are a once in a lifetime achievement which potentially alters the court for a generation or more. The political stakes couldn’t be higher. How is that less partisan than judges who will only be in the court for a few years?

    Leave a comment:


  • All-American
    replied
    Originally posted by Moliere View Post

    If you put term limits on scotus you’ll make it even more partisan than it is now.
    Term limits for judges is an accommodation for something that should never have happened but may be too late to put back in the bag.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shaka
    replied
    Originally posted by Non Sequitur View Post

    So, you think that SCJ decisions should be tied to political party affiliation? Spoken like a true conservative.
    I think it should be tied to the interpretation of the Constitution. However, the political leanings of the justices is going to be a factor in that interpretation. It's been that way for a loooooooooooong time. Don't act like liberal justices are the bastion of non-political interpretation of the constitution.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moliere
    replied
    Originally posted by Non Sequitur View Post

    So, you think that SCJ decisions should be tied to political party affiliation? Spoken like a true conservative.
    If you put term limits on scotus you’ll make it even more partisan than it is now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Non Sequitur
    replied
    Originally posted by Shaka View Post
    Here's an idea for SCJ: Know when to retire. If you decide to remain on the court until you die then you may be screwing your preferred party.
    So, you think that SCJ decisions should be tied to political party affiliation? Spoken like a true conservative.

    Leave a comment:


  • Northwestcoug
    replied
    Originally posted by Shaka View Post
    Here's an idea for SCJ: Know when to retire. If you decide to remain on the court until you die then you may be screwing your preferred party.
    Or, hear me out on this one. The US could join the rest of the developed world and have term limits or a mandatory retirement age for the Supreme Court.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maximus
    replied
    Where did I say a good percentage. Oops never mins...I should've said leaders . But yes texas is perfectly ok with killing women on this . Someone needs an emergency procedure and they threaten doctors if they save a life. Certainly not a about pro life.

    I wonder if the sc would take it back if they knew some states would try and prevent women from being saved if doctors said it was necessary .

    Leave a comment:


  • Shaka
    replied
    Originally posted by Maximus View Post
    Amazing that conservatives in some states took this case to make it legal to kill women if they have complications in pregnancy. Do the supporters of this overturning now regret it knowing Texas and others are pushing women to die over it ?

    Makes me realize it was never about pro life for a good percentage
    You've got to be kidding me. Are you stating that for a good percentage of conservatives, it's more about killing women rather than preserving the lives of the unborn?

    Leave a comment:


  • Maximus
    replied
    Amazing that conservative leaders in some states took this case to make it legal to kill women if they have complications in pregnancy. Do the supporters of this overturning now regret it knowing Texas and others are pushing women to die over it ?

    Makes me realize it was never about pro life for them

    Leave a comment:


  • Shaka
    replied
    Here's an idea for SCJ: Know when to retire. If you decide to remain on the court until you die then you may be screwing your preferred party.

    Leave a comment:


  • All-American
    replied
    Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post

    What a ridiculous oversimplification.
    He’s right though, albeit in a way that completely misses the point. That is the problem with judge-made law.

    Leave a comment:


  • Northwestcoug
    replied
    Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post

    What a ridiculous oversimplification.
    Nothing in that quote suggests having term limits or mandatory retirement age for SCOTUS is any final solution. But that whole saga highlighted the grotesque nature of Ginsburg’s death watch in trying to time legal challenges, on both sides.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X