Abortion or the day Roe died

[Cellist]

[stuffedsuperdud]

Not only do we need artillery fodder, we need labor and an expanding consumer base.

Publicly available information:

The USA has 4 naval shipyards. China has 13. Stuff like this isn’t fiction:

https://eurasiantimes.com/chinas-pla-na ... -year/?amp

Hmm.

So, with exceptionalism being nothing more than a societal ideal, it's supposed to suck to be a prole, regardless of which continent you're on.

I exaggerate slightly for effect; I mean, I'm not ruling out our government's willingness to go straight up Project 100,000 and throw Forrest Gump types into Chinese machinegun fire, but that's probably the most extreme example. However, as we saw during the spring and summer of 2020, much of our 1st world comforts are made possible by an expendable force of unskilled laborers who accept a disproportionate amount of risk while receiving a bare minimum in compensation. What would a new cold-ish war with China be except this but scaled up? Even if we don't need a million actual bullet sponges, there are still going to be a ton of dirty jobs to do, and we're gonna need that prole for sure.

I'm not saying this is a course of national policy; that'd be a next level dystopian move. I'm saying that they think now is their window to make their move and collect the pro-life votes without risking that much blowback from the other side, which is distracted by so many other issues right now. Having more unwanted wards of the state to throw into the meat grinder in the wars to come is probably just a nice cherry on top. I think both of these factors rank much higher than the stuff hot white girls fixate on on social media, like patriarchy or misogyny or toxic masculinity.

However I don't at all think that's what is happening here. For one thing why would Democrats and Republicans have such a drastic disagreement on the national demographic interest?

Probably because the D's still sort of believe a little bit in actually representing their constituents, and the R's just need to generate votes any way possible to stay in office and continue supporting their corporatist overlords and personal ambitions? When your goals are flagrantly against the interests and desires of the majority of Americans, including the majority of your own constituents, but you're still a few election cycles from actually dismantling American government, well, you need to get creative then with garnering support, and the 2A and pro-life teams are your #1 and #2 best single issue blocs, even if they couldn't possibly make for worse bedfellows. Both of these groups are incredibly shortsighted and selfish, and can be counted on to look the other way for everything else you do as long as you give them this one thing they want.

I think this is effectively a religious dispute between Christians and Progressives. The rank-and-file of these movements truly believe that it is self-evident that abortion is either murder or a sacred right.

I don't think too many people except some far left feminists consider it a "sacred right," or at least, I don't think too many people consider it any more sacred than any of our other current rights. You're leaving out all the pragmatic folks who of course don't like the idea of an abortion, because what sane person really likes it, but don't want to go back to back alleys and coat hangers? What about anyone worried about a repeat of the Savita Halappanavar debacle? What if an overzealous doctor thinks a miscarriage was a botched abortion and calls the cops to arrest a woman at the worst moment of her life? I think instead of framing it as a religious dispute between people of faith and murderous femnazis, two categories that encompass relatively few people, what if we called the two sides "reluctantly-okay-with-all-that-shit" and "reluctantly-agrees-that-abortions-can-mitigate-that-shit" and see where people identity from there.

If nothing else, at risk of overusing Carlin, "rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges and if you read the news, even badly, you know the list gets shorter, and shorter, and shorter." I don't have a huge amount of skin in the abortion game but I do fear for what else they'll roll back. I mean, right now it just sounds like an unserious Clarence saying stupid shit, but we always knew they were able to roll us back and now we also know they are willing and eager too.

And see above re: politician nihilism. The rank and file probably believe a lot of stuff that politicians don't actually care about. I mean, at this point, half our elected leaders openly go into office without any plans or agendas or visions or goals for where we are going as a country, other than owning the libs, so why should I believe that culture war issues mean anything more to them than as a way to get everyone riled up on Twatter and keep them in power?

[Renascent]

Not only do we need artillery fodder, we need labor and an expanding consumer base.

Publicly available information:

The USA has 4 naval shipyards. China has 13. Stuff like this isn’t fiction:

https://eurasiantimes.com/chinas-pla-na ... -year/?amp

Hmm.

So, with exceptionalism being nothing more than a societal ideal, it's supposed to suck to be a prole, regardless of which continent you're on.

I exaggerate slightly for effect; I mean, I'm not ruling out our government's willingness to go straight up Project 100,000 and throw Forrest Gump types into Chinese machinegun fire, but that's probably the most extreme example. However, as we saw during the spring and summer of 2020, much of our 1st world comforts are made possible by an expendable force of unskilled laborers who accept a disproportionate amount of risk while receiving a bare minimum in compensation. What would a new cold-ish war with China be except this but scaled up? Even if we don't need a million actual bullet sponges, there are still going to be a ton of dirty jobs to do, and we're gonna need that prole for sure.

I hadn't given this angle much consideration.

My wife was watching a documentary last night about the Jane outfit in Chicago. I told her that someone online mentioned China and the ongoing economic war(s). She nodded affirmatively and basically paraphrased this same extrapolation.

[mbasic]

Japan's society has a pretty interesting view on abortion ....



=======================

In other news, my 15 y.o. showed me screenshot of a series of heated back-n-forth texts on his phone between some of his school mates regarding this topic.

My boy's friend (not a close friend) was brought up Christian, and was arguing a that aborting (esp.late term) babies amounts to murder, and they got into the whole thing of when to consider a fetus a baby or whatever.....
The girl he was arguing with, was 'pro choice' or whatever, and said, "well, every you jack off, millions of sperm die and its the same thing as an abortion....so you are a mass murderer".

Its funny (sad) watching all of these social conflicts (abortion, gun control, covid policies, BLM, #metoo, etc) filter down to youth, and the feedback I get from my son. This next upcoming generation has been over-exposed to social media, and the internet-news-matrix since youth with smartphones now being now completely 99.9% ubiquitous in society. Wait until these guys/gals are adults!

[mouse]

"well, every you jack off, millions of sperm die and its the same thing as an abortion....so you are a mass murderer".

K because I keep seeing this point posted as some kind of (at best) gotcha zinger or (at worst) an actual argument...

This has to be evidence of public schools failure to educate our kids right? I mean no matter where you stand on the issue this is middle school bio shit...

We all know that this is not how this works, right? RIGHT?

[JonA]

"well, every you jack off, millions of sperm die and its the same thing as an abortion....so you are a mass murderer".

K because I keep seeing this point posted as some kind of (at best) gotcha zinger or (at worst) an actual argument...

This has to be evidence of public schools failure to educate our kids right? I mean no matter where you stand on the issue this is middle school bio shit...

We all know that this is not how this works, right? RIGHT?

I'll give a pass to the middle schoolers who argue that. It's the adults on social media that make that argument that make me cringe.

[Renascent]

Its funny (sad) watching all of these social conflicts (abortion, gun control, covid policies, BLM, #metoo, etc) filter down to youth...

Not understanding why this is lamentable.

Sure, on some level, the effectiveness of political engagement might be overrated, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone felt the same way about the youth of the 1960s and 1970s. And back then, you were stuck with, what, three national news channels to rely on for dissemination?

I'm kinda relieved that an assumed homogeneity of thought and popular sentiment is no longer a safe assumption. I've heard people pine for the "simpler times" of the 1950s, for example; I'm quite glad to have missed it by a couple of decades, despite all of ... this right now.

Sure, social media can responsible for spreading some pretty mindless shit, but I'll give the kids their credit. They're a lot more tolerable than the politically disengaged adults I know who figure they're okay because they're not (yet) "affected" by any recent developments. There's plenty of adults walking around with skewed perceptions of the world, even without the aid of social media.

At least the kids ain't sleep.

[mbasic]

Its funny (sad) watching all of these social conflicts (abortion, gun control, covid policies, BLM, #metoo, etc) filter down to youth...

Not understanding why this is lamentable.

The hundred of thousands of babies dying during auto eroctic stimulation is an example.
I don't know if young teenagers / preteens have good critical thinking skills .... and/or just wind up echoing the thoughts of their parents.
Doesn't seem like good thought provoking discourse could be had at that level, and it turns more into a shit throwing contest.
Its just making the kids hate each other ... kids wind up hating each other because of what their parents instilled in them (not all time, but many times.....and that's not the kid's fault)

Sure, on some level, the effectiveness of political engagement might be overrated, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone felt the same way about the youth of the 1960s and 1970s. And back then, you were stuck with, what, three national news channels to rely on for dissemination?

I see your point, but now we have what exactly? A lot people (read: these kid's parents, and/or the kid's themselves) get their "news" from 100 smaller tier broadcasts, like that young turks snippet from above, and Twitter, etc.

I'm kinda relieved that an assumed homogeneity of thought and popular sentiment is no longer a safe assumption. I've heard people pine for the "simpler times" of the 1950s, for example; I'm quite glad to have missed it by a couple of decades, despite all of ... this right now.

I don't disagree, but again .... kids digesting all this shit under the guidance of their parents seem to just be spurring on hate between political leanings, sexes, social classes, races, etc.

Sure, social media can responsible for spreading some pretty mindless shit, but I'll give the kids their credit. They're a lot more tolerable than the politically disengaged adults I know who figure they're okay because they're not (yet) "affected" by any recent developments. There's plenty of adults walking around with skewed perceptions of the world, even without the aid of social media.

At least the kids ain't sleep.

I agree the kids should be made fully aware of this stuff (race inequities is a biggie), with some age appropriate cut offs would be nice, but there's no magic trick to moderate that. Abortion is a pretty heavy subject.

I guess I'm not happy about how the kids are not getting along with each other, and how thats FUTHER handicapping their already fucked up ways they socialize ..... IOW: don't socialize; or cybersocialize; "play"; enjoy life (see also: current teen suicide rates).

[Allentown]

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/202 ... 788415001/

[hector]

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/202 ... 788415001/

How far of a leap is it before a girl's/woman's home state starts going after her for an abortion she got in another state?

I understand the idea of jurisdiction. But I also understand lawyers are creative. And that somewhere there's a fundamentalist attorney chomping at the bit.

[aurelius]

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/202 ... 788415001/

How far of a leap is it before a girl's/woman's home state starts going after her for an abortion she got in another state?

I understand the idea of jurisdiction. But I also understand lawyers are creative. And that somewhere there's a fundamentalist attorney chomping at the bit.

States almost certainly cannot not restrict travel. But the Texas 'bounty' law, which allows private citizens to sue others, is under review.

See other States' mirror the Texas 'Bounty' law. Legally, I don't see how it withstands any scrutiny. How can one State pass laws that apply to other States? Imagine as Blue States begin passing their own bounty laws in retaliation. It will be chaos. From a practical standpoint, if the person providing the abortion service or the person receiving the abortion service does not return to the State where it is illegal, how is it enforceable? How is any of it enforceable? If a conservative President is elected, will they use the Federal government to enforce such laws? I can only imagine a HUGE invasion of privacy, lack of due process, and so on to enforce these types of rules. With pro-life groups hacking abortion providers for client lists. But these types of questions seem unimportant to the 5 extremist judges that make up the majority. The law seems to matter very little to them as the Dobbs case illustrates. Facts are just as easily discarded by this majority as the Kennedy case shows. They only ask themselves WWJD (if Jesus was a white fascist, militant asshole).

[dw]

One state can't criminalize an act performed in another state as a matter of sovereignty.

From Google: The privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship that cannot be unreasonably abridged by state laws include the right to travel from state to state; the right to vote for federal officeholders; the right to enter public lands; the right to petition Congress to redress grievances; the right to inform the national ..

I've seen the hypothetical mentioned several times and AFAIK it's pretty much black letter constitutional law that a state can't restrict the rights of its citizens with respect to access to other states.

[aurelius]

One state can't criminalize an act performed in another state as a matter of sovereignty.

One state can't enforce their rules in another State. The State could write the law in such a way that it is illegal for residents to undergo an abortion anywhere versus outlawing abortion within its borders. Why could the State not enforce that law on a resident that leaves the State to have an abortion when that resident returns to the State?

From Google: The privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship that cannot be unreasonably abridged by state laws include the right to travel from state to state; the right to vote for federal officeholders; the right to enter public lands; the right to petition Congress to redress grievances; the right to inform the national ..

I've seen the hypothetical mentioned several times and AFAIK it's pretty much black letter constitutional law that a state can't restrict the rights of its citizens with respect to access to other states.

Agreed.

Moving past criminalization, is the Texas 'bounty' law which allows "residents of the state to sue clinics, doctors, nurses and even people who drive a woman to get the procedure, for at least $10,000." It uses private citizens and the civil court system to financially punish abortion providers. Even those not in the State. SCOTUS declined to block the law. It will be heard in the next session.

[dw]

One state can't criminalize an act performed in another state as a matter of sovereignty.

One state can't enforce their rules in another State. The State could write the law in such a way that it is illegal for residents to undergo an abortion anywhere versus outlawing abortion within its borders. Why could the State not enforce that law on a resident that leaves the State to have an abortion when that resident returns to the State?

From Google: The privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship that cannot be unreasonably abridged by state laws include the right to travel from state to state; the right to vote for federal officeholders; the right to enter public lands; the right to petition Congress to redress grievances; the right to inform the national ..

I've seen the hypothetical mentioned several times and AFAIK it's pretty much black letter constitutional law that a state can't restrict the rights of its citizens with respect to access to other states.

Agreed.

Moving past criminalization, is the Texas 'bounty' law which allows "residents of the state to sue clinics, doctors, nurses and even people who drive a woman to get the procedure, for at least $10,000." It uses private citizens and the civil court system to financially punish abortion providers. Even those not in the State. SCOTUS declined to block the law. It will be heard in the next session.

Regarding the bolded, I think the solution is that at the time they get the abortion they are not residents of the home state. That form of residency only exists for tax purposes and certain privileges (like in-state tuition discounts).

Police powers only extend to acts actually committed within a state's borders, otherwise you would have overlapping sovereignties leading to absurd results like a person who commits a murder in one state being triable in all 50 state court systems.

[Renascent]

otherwise you would have overlapping sovereignties leading to absurd results like a person who commits a murder in one state being triable in all 50 state court systems.

This doesn't seem like a far-fetched possibility, in my opinion...

Certainly depends on the crime (and definitely depends on the "victim(s)")...

[hector]

Police powers only extend to acts actually committed within a state's borders, otherwise you would have overlapping sovereignties leading to absurd results like a person who commits a murder in one state being triable in all 50 state court systems.

I agree it's absurd.
But there isn't a fundamentalist prosecutor somewhere who won't decide that the fetus conceived in his state is deserving of justice?
The fundamentalist prosecutor won't decide the woman in their state, when she made plans to leave the state and obtain an abortion, wasn't conspiring to commit murder? And that the conspiracy didn't occur in that prosecutor's jurisdiction?
(Or insert a million other nonsensical legal theories. Their lack of coherence and logic are part of the point.)
This stuff seems absurd to you and me because it is.
The problem is you and me don't have the fundamentalist worldview and we aren't elected prosecutors bearing a hard-core, old-testament mindset catering to a MAGA electorate.

The fundamentalist prosecutor who started doing this stuff and talking about it on television would be loved by an enormous segment of this country. By many of the same people who installed a criminal gameshow host into the Whitehouse.

Even if he/she lost the cases, can you imagine the hero this prosecutor would become to The Right? The Fox TV guest spots? The book deals? The paid speaking engagements?

There are blue states that deny the federal government and are sanctuary to the undocumented. There are red areas that defy federal gun laws and are sanctuaries for gun owners. Why wouldn't a red area defy federal laws and become a sanctuary for "fetal justice?" (Obviously the real name will be more catchy, better thought out.)

[dw]

The concept is "territorial jurisdiction" (I didn't remember this but found it on Google). A court has to have territorial jurisdiction which for a state court would mean that the action concerns matters substantially occuring within its territory. If multiple state territories are involved it can qualify for federal jurisdiction under the diversity rule.

Regarding the rogue prosecutor hypothetical, we still have appellate courts. But yes if there is enough erosion of perceived legitimacy of institutions they can lose their actual power regardless of their formal authority.

If Trump had gotten Pence to not certify his election and the house police to arrest the Democrats he could made himself Emergency President until Real Elections were held or whatever his fantasy may have been.

But I think we were discussing the legal question. (Which to be fair is not explicit in the constitution but I'm sure is a commonlaw principle of due process.)

[hector]

The concept is "territorial jurisdiction" (I didn't remember this but found it on Google). A court has to have territorial jurisdiction which for a state court would mean that the action concerns matters substantially occuring within its territory. If multiple state territories are involved it can qualify for federal jurisdiction under the diversity rule.

Regarding the rogue prosecutor hypothetical, we still have appellate courts. But yes if there is enough erosion of perceived legitimacy of institutions they can lose their actual power regardless of their formal authority.

If Trump had gotten Pence to not certify his election and the house police to arrest the Democrats he could made himself Emergency President until Real Elections were held or whatever his fantasy may have been.

But I think we were discussing the legal question. (Which to be fair is not explicit in the constitution but I'm sure is a commonlaw principle of due process.)

Fair enough on the legality front. Agree 100%. (Not that it's worth anything, since I don't know the law.)

I'm cynical enough to think that the law will be disregarded, misinterpreted, ignored, or otherwise abused by clever politicians who exploit base desires of their electorate in order to unjustly achieve their own political outcomes.

I naively thought years back that extra judicial assassination and torture weren't legally kosher. But those in charge of implementing these policies didnt just skirt punishment, they generally fared well. I'm not suggesting these are the equivalent of abortion. I'm making the point that it's hard to predict future norms and smart legal predictions can be wrong. I see culture as the driver of norms, and laws sometimes kicked to the curb in their wake.

And technical question: If a prosecutor had phone records with GPS locations, emails with IP addresses, etc., proving the location of a woman when she planned her out-of-state abortion, would those records give the prosecutor grounds to prosecute for conspiracy in their state? If the laws for this don't exist now, will they not in the future? States are polarizing, red getting redder, things might get crazy.

[aurelius]

@dw residency does not work the way you describe. It is a permanent status. When you move to another State, you have to meet certain requirements (like having an address for an extended period of time) and then apply for residency. Visiting a State does not change one’s residency status.

I don’t see why Texas could not pass laws making it illegal for residents to get abortions. Which would neatly bypass the territorial jurisdiction as it would not matter where the abortion occurred. Yes, enforcement can only happen in the State of Texas but the implication would have a chilling effect for traveling out of State for abortion.

We will know a lot based on how SCOTUS rules on the Texas Bounty law. Essentially SCOTUS has thrown out thre rule of law. Things that were obvious a week ago are anyone’s guess moving forward. At least 2 SCOTUS justices buy into the independent state legislature theory which essentially states a State legislature can override the State’s election and vote how eager they want. We are in now in the worst timeline.

[DCR]

@dw residency does not work the way you describe. It is a permanent status. When you move to another State, you have to meet certain requirements (like having an address for an extended period of time) and then apply for residency. Visiting a State does not change one’s residency status.

I don’t see why Texas could not pass laws making it illegal for residents to get abortions. Which would neatly bypass the territorial jurisdiction as it would not matter where the abortion occurred. Yes, enforcement can only happen in the State of Texas but the implication would have a chilling effect for traveling out of State for abortion.

We will know a lot based on how SCOTUS rules on the Texas Bounty law. Essentially SCOTUS has thrown out thre rule of law. Things that were obvious a week ago are anyone’s guess moving forward. At least 2 SCOTUS justices buy into the independent state legislature theory which essentially states a State legislature can override the State’s election and vote how eager they want. We are in now in the worst timeline.

I’ve lived in multiple states and have never heard of applying for residency. As I understand it, residency generally is a facts and circumstances determination.

That said, +1 on everything else in your post.