Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery

[tigol 2395]

Thank you for your support.

Post away.

[Anastasis 23469]

2 hours ago, tigol said:

I've been on hormonal birth control for years.  It poses several health risks and my husband will not get a vasectomy.

Hormonal contraception never really agreed with my wife. Vasectomy was an easy call for us after we sufficiently propagated our genetics. 

Edited September 15, 2021 by Anastasis

[ConferenceRoom 6141]

I had an ablation 18 years ago and I’ve been blissfully period free since!

I’m sure the technology has gotten even better so my experience may be outdated but PM me if you have any questions.

Wouldn’t want to gross out the sensitive fellas.

Oh please, dear? For your information the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint.

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

8 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Interesting law review on projecting the patriarchy - Patriarchy as the exclusive domain of the other: The veil controversy, false projection and cultural racism, Susanna Mancini, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 10, Issue 2, 30 March 2012, Pages 411–428. 

https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/10/2/411/666047

 

It’s really not that interesting. Pretty boring tbh.

[4th&Five 41526]

And a pussy. Getting snipped was about as uncomfortable as a teeth cleaning. 

[tokamak 6424]

My wife was also one that didn't do well at all on the pill. I used a rubber for years until we were ready to have kids, then between kid #1 and kid #2. I was practically waiting outside my urologist's office with my nuts already out the day after our 2nd was born.

Edited September 15, 2021 by tokamak

[safe sex 11712]

I want to applaud all of the men who have taken proactive steps to be the persons responsible for their own fertility. 

[ultimaton 2978]

Mark Lee Dickson paved the way for the Texas abortion ban, one small town at a tIme

Quote

Dickson says he has no personal experience with abortion. He often tells audiences that he is a “36-year-old virgin” who sees himself as a millennial missionary to keep abortion clinics out of Texas. It’s something that he’s been passionate about since he was a child, attending county fairs with his grandfather’s antiabortion group. He says his own battles with depression have shown him how precious life is.

An incel. Surprise, surprise. 

[Js1 85316]

 

[wildcat09 29352]

12 hours ago, ultimaton said:

Mark Lee Dickson paved the way for the Texas abortion ban, one small town at a tIme

An incel. Surprise, surprise. 

There's probably decent odds that he's murdered a woman already. 

[Bigpoppapump 529]

26 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

There's probably decent odds that he's murdered a woman already. 

Nah, just fantasized about it on 4chan.

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/17/texas-abortion-ban-jonathan-mitchell-supreme-court-brief

Quote

The legal architect of the Texas abortion ban has argued in a supreme court brief that overturning Roe v Wade, the landmark decision which guarantees a right to abortion in the US, would compel women to practice abstinence as a way to “control their reproductive lives”.

Former Texas solicitor general Jonathan Mitchell, who played a pivotal role in designing the legal framework of the state’s near-total abortion ban, also argued on behalf of anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life that women would still be able to terminate pregnancies if Roe was overturned by traveling to “wealthy pro-abortion” states like California and New York with the help of “taxpayer subsidies”.

 

Quote

“Women can ‘control their reproductive lives’ without access to abortion; they can do so by refraining from sexual intercourse,” Mitchell wrote in the brief. “One can imagine a scenario in which a woman has chosen to engage in unprotected (or insufficiently protected) sexual intercourse on the assumption that an abortion will be available to her later. But when this court announces the overruling of Roe, that individual can simply change their behavior in response to the court’s decision if she no longer wants to take the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.”

 

Spoiler

The supreme court is due to hear a Mississippi case this term that experts say could lead to the reversal of the Roe decision by the court’s conservative majority. The argument was made in an amicus, or “friend of the court”, brief in which outside parties can present arguments on cases before the court. The brief was filed on 29 July, about four weeks before Texas’s abortion ban went into effect.

In the same brief, which calls for Roe to be overturned, Mitchell and co-counsel Adam Mortara, an anti-abortion activist and lawyer who clerked for the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas, said such a decision could open the door for other “lawless” rights and protections to be reversed, including the right to have gay sex and the right to same-sex marriage.

The lawyers argued that while it was not necessary for the high court to immediately overrule the legal cases that enshrine those rights, “neither should the court hesitate to write an opinion that leaves those decisions hanging by a thread”.

Those cases (Lawrence, which outlawed criminal sanctions against people who engaged in gay sex, and Obergefell, which legalized same-sex marriage) were “far less hazardous to human life”, they said, but just “as lawless as Roe”.

It is common for high-profile cases such as the Mississippi abortion case to elicit amicus briefs by activists and lawyers who are seeking to weigh in on the legal debate.

But Mitchell and Mortara’s brief is significant because conservatives on the high court recently ruled in a controversial 5-4 decision to allow a Texas law to stand that was designed by Mitchell and in effect bans abortions after about six weeks, before most people know they are pregnant.

While the majority of the justices stressed that they had not yet ruled on the constitutionality of the Texas law itself, the ruling showed that the majority was receptive to Mitchell’s legal strategy.

The abortion case the supreme court will hear this term centers on the legality of a Mississippi law that can ban abortion at 15 weeks gestation. Roe gives pregnant women the right to an abortion up to roughly 24 weeks, or the point at which a fetus can live outside the womb.

The court’s decision to hear the case has alarmed reproductive rights advocates because it blatantly violates the standard set by Roe. Now, in the wake of Texas’s near-total abortion ban, the possibility that the court could overturn the constitutional right to abortion has come into sharp focus. Such a ruling could come in spite of polls that show most Americans believe abortion should be legal in most circumstances.

At the heart of Mitchell and Mortara’s argument in the Mississippi case lies the view that overturning Roe would not outlaw all abortion in the US, but would “merely” return the issue to individual states, which could individually decide whether to ban or restrict terminations. More than half of US states are hostile to abortion rights.

“But women who reside in those states can travel to pro-abortion states to get their abortions – and there is no shortage of ‘abortion funds’ throughout the country that are eager to pay the travel costs and abortion-related costs for indigent women who are seeking to abort their pregnancies,” they said.

Mitchell has been the subject of media attention since it became clear that he had helped devise the Texas law, which allows private citizens to sue anyone “aiding or abetting” a pregnant woman in obtaining an abortion past roughly six weeks.

This structure, which one legal expert called a “fig leaf” for the state, led to the supreme court’s refusal to block the law, with a 6-3 majority describing the law as presenting “complex antecedent procedural questions” that needed to be litigated.

Mitchell has been portrayed in some media accounts as an outsider in the conservative judicial network that has led the drive to seat anti-abortion judges and justices in the past decades. But an examination of Mitchell’s record has found that the former clerk for Antonin Scalia, the late conservative supreme court justice, has ties to groups and organizations that are at the heart of the conservative movement. Those organizations, in turn, have direct links to conservative members of the court.

In 2016, in emails that were released after a Freedom of Information Act request, Mitchell’s name was raised by Henry Butler, the then dean of the George Mason Law School, as a person that he and Leonard Leo, the head of the conservative Federalist Society, would consider hiring.

Leo, who is known to have selected a short list of potential supreme court nominees for Donald Trump when he entered office, has been credited by conservatives for building a court that would – someday – overturn Roe.

Friends and colleagues of Mitchell say that Mitchell and Leo do not have an especially close relationship.

In 2019 the powerful, conservative religious law group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) began paying Mitchell’s private law firm for services listed as “religious freedom”. The more than $36,517 payment came as Mitchell was simultaneously building case law on his unusual legal theory, the very same provision that would come to define Texas’s six-week abortion ban called SB8.

In an email, Mitchell declined to respond to the Guardian’s questions about the nature of his work for ADF.

ADF was in the spotlight in 2020 after it emerged that Trump’s final nominee to serve on the court, Amy Coney Barrett, was a paid speaker for a program run by ADF, which was established to inspire a “distinctly Christian worldview in every area of law”. The head of the organization, Michael Farris, attended the infamous Rose Garden event in which Barrett was nominated to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The event would later emerge as a super spreader event in which multiple individuals, including possibly Trump, contracted Covid-19.

 

Edited September 17, 2021 by Francisco 2.0

[wildcat09 29352]

They'll be saying the same shit in support of laws prohibiting contraception soon. I'll bet any amount of money on it.

[Captainant 27659]

33 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

They'll be saying the same shit in support of laws prohibiting contraception soon. I'll bet any amount of money on it.

Hobby lobby sends it's regards. I doubt it'll be an outright prohibition, but something like reclassifying it as non-medical and statutorily removing coverage from insurance sure sounds like something they'd try

[wildcat09 29352]

8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Hobby lobby sends it's regards. I doubt it'll be an outright prohibition, but something like reclassifying it as non-medical and statutorily removing coverage from insurance sure sounds like something they'd try

No, they'll try banning it in states where they feel comfortably in control. We're not dealing with cautious incrementalists, we're dealing with true believers. 

[TwiceHorn 31454]

Well, the District Judge with the DOJ case seems to be struggling with some of the same procedural issues as the Supreme Court, declining the Biden DOJs invitation to TRO the statute.  He wants a preliminary injunction hearing, at least.

Probably a smart move to avoid summary reversal by the Fifth Circuit.

Robert Pitman is an Obama appointee and is also openly gay.

Pretty accessible post about the procedural difficulties posed by SB 8. https://blog.simplejustice.us/2021/09/15/can-doj-overcome-the-injunction-dilemma-of-texas-sb8/

Make no mistake, I think this law is going to be shot into the sun, eventually.  But it's going to take some maneuvering to get there.

Edited September 17, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[F250 28769]

1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

The legal architect of the Texas abortion ban has argued in a supreme court brief that overturning Roe v Wade, the landmark decision which guarantees a right to abortion in the US, would compel women to practice abstinence as a way to “control their reproductive lives”.

So no gambling, no marijuana,
no hookers and now the idea is to promote abstinence within the general population?

 

The next time I encounter a social conservative.

 

[elfenix 34236]

50 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the District Judge with the DOJ case seems to be struggling with some of the same procedural issues as the Supreme Court, declining the Biden DOJs invitation to TRO the statute.  He wants a preliminary injunction hearing, at least.

Probably a smart move to avoid summary reversal by the Fifth Circuit.

Robert Pitman is an Obama appointee and is also openly gay.

Pretty accessible post about the procedural difficulties posed by SB 8. https://blog.simplejustice.us/2021/09/15/can-doj-overcome-the-injunction-dilemma-of-texas-sb8/

Make no mistake, I think this law is going to be shot into the sun, eventually.  But it's going to take some maneuvering to get there.

how is this not shelley v kraemer?

Edited September 17, 2021 by elfenix
shelley has multiple Es

[Captainant 27659]

29 minutes ago, F250 said:

The next time I encounter a social conservative.

they usually claim to be "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" - they just are too dumb to realize that they're pulling the lever for both fiscal and social conservatism.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

4 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

.....would compel women to practice abstinence as a way to “control their reproductive lives”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/17/texas-abortion-ban-jonathan-mitchell-supreme-court-brief

This is the shaming and punishment part of the policy and the underlying Dimmesdale's Puritanical zeal. It is implied that it is her sin and her consequences  i.e. she did not refrain from abstinence--she *gasp* enjoys sex, just as men enjoy sex and therefore her fall from 'grace.'

4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

They'll be saying the same shit in support of laws prohibiting contraception soon. I'll bet any amount of money on it.

Exactly. That's why I don't buy their work around.

[brakeman 28360]

[brakeman 28360]

[WhatTheBuck 28777]

9 hours ago, F250 said:

So no gambling, no marijuana,
no hookers and now the idea is to promote abstinence within the general population?

And some of them like to call themselves libertarians. 

[ROFL BOX 6649]

28 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

And some of them like to call themselves libertarians. 

When in reality, they should call themselves "cats".

Totally dependent upon others, but they tell everyone they are independent & need zero outside assistance.

[TexLonghorn 5664]

...and they keep showing their ass to everybody.

[ROFL BOX 6649]

Supposedly spotted in Fort Worth.

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31454]

17 hours ago, elfenix said:

how is this not shelley v kraemer?

That's definitely going to come into play, that is, the "doctrine" of private parties invoking state mechanisms to attempt to violate the Constitution and thereby becoming state actors.

But this isn't even postured like Shelley:  there's not an ongoing attempt to enforce.  Moreover, a Shelley-type ruling would only create a "personal" defense of unconstitutionality to each action, it wouldn't necessarily eradicate the statute.  That's a nice start, though.

The primary relief being sought in this case (DOJ) and the other one that's stalled is an injunction against enforcement of the statute.  That's the usual remedy when the state, through an officer, attempts to enforce an unconstitutional statute.

As obvious as is the unconstitutionality, the path to get to the equivalent of an injunction against the state of Texas is convoluted.  Because by the terms of the statute, the state and state officers cannot enforce it.  Only private parties.  Who do you enjoin?  

Edited September 18, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[HenryJames 66047]

 

[F250 28769]

Ok. It's time to bring back the lions.

 

 

 

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45678]

20 hours ago, F250 said:

So no gambling, no marijuana,
no hookers and now the idea is to promote abstinence within the general population?

 

The next time I encounter a social conservative.

 

[wildcat09 29352]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's definitely going to come into play, that is, the "doctrine" of private parties invoking state mechanisms to attempt to violate the Constitution and thereby becoming state actors.

But this isn't even postured like Shelley:  there's not an ongoing attempt to enforce.  Moreover, a Shelley-type ruling would only create a "personal" defense of unconstitutionality to each action, it wouldn't necessarily eradicate the statute.  That's a nice start, though.

The primary relief being sought in this case (DOJ) and the other one that's stalled is an injunction against enforcement of the statute.  That's the usual remedy when the state, through an officer, attempts to enforce an unconstitutional statute.

As obvious as is the unconstitutionality, the path to get to the equivalent of an injunction against the state of Texas is convoluted.  Because by the terms of the statute, the state and state officers cannot enforce it.  Only private parties.  Who do you enjoin?  

Judges and clerks. This isn’t nearly as difficult as people are pretending, and that’s why the circuit has stayed district proceedings that would determine proper defendants.

[brakeman 28360]

[BearSchlong 8087]

Supposedly spotted in Fort Worth.
 
 

Read a great book on big data called "everybody lies" where Google Metadata was anonymously used to show that (prior to this legislation) Mississippi led the internet for searches for "at home abortions" and also was state with the least abortion access.

Guess thats going to change.

[DDD Dad 14336]

That's definitely going to come into play, that is, the "doctrine" of private parties invoking state mechanisms to attempt to violate the Constitution and thereby becoming state actors.
But this isn't even postured like Shelley:  there's not an ongoing attempt to enforce.  Moreover, a Shelley-type ruling would only create a "personal" defense of unconstitutionality to each action, it wouldn't necessarily eradicate the statute.  That's a nice start, though.
The primary relief being sought in this case (DOJ) and the other one that's stalled is an injunction against enforcement of the statute.  That's the usual remedy when the state, through an officer, attempts to enforce an unconstitutional statute.
As obvious as is the unconstitutionality, the path to get to the equivalent of an injunction against the state of Texas is convoluted.  Because by the terms of the statute, the state and state officers cannot enforce it.  Only private parties.  Who do you enjoin?  

I’m just spitballing here but wouldn’t judicial enforcement of a unconstitutional civil remedy itself constitute unconstitutional state action?

[TwiceHorn 31454]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

I’m just spitballing here but wouldn’t judicial enforcement of a unconstitutional civil remedy itself constitute unconstitutional state action?

Yeah, that's the Shelley notion.  But, that would have to be raised in an action under the statute and wouldn't be a basis for prospective injunctive relief.

Having a "personal" defense of unconstitutionality is nice, but you still have to sit through the litigation and appeals and bullshit.  And, I'm not sure I trust the Texas courts to reach the right decision on it.  

Edited September 19, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Biff Tannen 45678]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, that's the Shelley notion.  But, that would have to be raised in an action under the statute and wouldn't be a basis for prospective injunctive relief.

Having a "personal" defense of unconstitutionality is nice, but you still have to sit through the litigation and appeals and bullshit.  And, I'm not sure I trust the Texas courts to reach the right decision on it.  

Does this make you happy or sad to be a lawyer?

[High Plains Drifter 11045]

 

 

[Willfully Horn 8014]

Alan Braid fucks.

[Bama Chick 28596]

September 6th, huh?

Thanks for the awesome birthday present Dr. Braid!

[Satoshi 129]

On 9/14/2021 at 11:41 PM, Anastasis said:

Hormonal contraception never really agreed with my wife. Vasectomy was an easy call for us after we sufficiently propagated our genetics. 

Imagine making your wife take exogenous hormone regimens for years because you’re too big of a pussy to have a vasectomy. 

[brakeman 28360]

[staboner 4969]

3 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Alan Braid fucks.

more liek he unfucks, i think

[Willfully Horn 8014]

1 hour ago, staboner said:

more liek he unfucks, i think

Fair point. But, my comment was in aggregate.

[WhatTheBuck 28777]

On 9/19/2021 at 2:50 AM, Biff Tannen said:

Does this make you happy or sad to be a lawyer?

Lol. As if lawyers have feelings. 

[TwiceHorn 31454]

On 9/19/2021 at 1:50 AM, Biff Tannen said:

Does this make you happy or sad to be a lawyer?

Not sure what you mean.  Like most matters legal, and a lot of other things, there's a process that has to be followed.  Until the federal courts figure it out, I think anyone that gets sued has the defense, likely successful, that this is an unconstitutional state action.  But, they're going to have to sit through the litigation and appeals.  Good news is that there is likely no shortage of lawyers willing to defend such a case pro bono, so at least fees won't be an issue.

What will be interesting, if it comes to pass, is what Texas district judges and lower courts of appeal do with this.  My sense of it is that most of the lower court judges in Texas, at least in the big counties, are "dem-leans."  That may be shifting a little bit of late and being a "dem-lean" doesn't mean pro-choice, or possessing the intellect or spine to rule a statute unconstitutional.  Of course, one's personal view of abortion shouldn't affect the outcome of this.

Edited September 20, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[DDD Dad 14336]

Not sure what you mean.  Like most matters legal, and a lot of other things, there's a process that has to be followed.  Until the federal courts figure it out, I think anyone that gets sued has the defense, likely successful, that this is an unconstitutional state action.  But, they're going to have to sit through the litigation and appeals.  Good news is that there is likely no shortage of lawyers willing to defend such a case pro bono, so at least fees won't be an issue.
What will be interesting, if it comes to pass, is what Texas district judges and lower courts of appeal do with this.  My sense of it is that most of the lower court judges in Texas, at least in the big counties, are "dem-leans."  That may be shifting a little bit of late and being a "dem-lean" doesn't mean pro-choice, or possessing the intellect or spine to rule a statute unconstitutional.  Of course, one's personal view of abortion shouldn't affect the outcome of this.

Once a suit is accepted for filing it would seem to me one could assert unconstitutionality as a defense or bring an ancillary suit against the court to challenge the enforcement of the statute by that court. Since there would be an actual case or controversy.

But I haven’t researched the issue. Just spitballing.

[Biff Tannen 45678]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not sure what you mean.  Like most matters legal, and a lot of other things, there's a process that has to be followed.  Until the federal courts figure it out, I think anyone that gets sued has the defense, likely successful, that this is an unconstitutional state action.  But, they're going to have to sit through the litigation and appeals.  Good news is that there is likely no shortage of lawyers willing to defend such a case pro bono, so at least fees won't be an issue.

What will be interesting, if it comes to pass, is what Texas district judges and lower courts of appeal do with this.  My sense of it is that most of the lower court judges in Texas, at least in the big counties, are "dem-leans."  That may be shifting a little bit of late and being a "dem-lean" doesn't mean pro-choice, or possessing the intellect or spine to rule a statute unconstitutional.  Of course, one's personal view of abortion shouldn't affect the outcome of this.

Not sure what I meant either.  Check the timestamp on that.  Lol.

[Js1 85316]

13 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Not sure what I meant either.  Check the timestamp on that.  Lol.

Couple of drinks and

[Ten Bears 2481]

On 9/18/2021 at 8:20 PM, BearSchlong said:

Read a great book on big data called "everybody lies" where Google Metadata was anonymously used to show that (prior to this legislation) Mississippi led the internet for searches for "at home abortions" and also was state with the least abortion access.

Guess thats going to change.

That is a great book.

[wildcat09 29352]

And we've got our first bounty lawsuit.

For the fun part: 

Quote

On Monday, an Arkansas man said he decided to file a lawsuit to test the constitutionality of the Texas measure after reading a news report about Braid’s declaration. Oscar Stilley, a former lawyer convicted of tax fraud in 2010, said he is not personally opposed to abortion, but believes that the measure should be subject to judicial review.

“If the law is no good, why should we have to go through a long, drawn-out process to find out if it’s garbage?” Stilley said in an interview after filing the complaint in state court in Bexar County, Tex., which includes San Antonio.

He also noted that a successful lawsuit could result in an award in court of at least $10,000 for the plaintiff.

“If the state of Texas decided it’s going to give a $10,000 bounty, why shouldn’t I get that 10,000 bounty?” said Stilley, who is currently serving his 15-year federal sentence on home confinement.