Dobbs observations a few days on
-
A list of random thoughts about the leak, the ruling, and he reaction
-
Lying to the SCOTUS Marshall is a felony. Imagine you're the leaker, say a law clerk. You'd have to think really hard about how well you've covered your tracks. If you admit to the leak you get fired, maybe disbarred, but not likely face legal charges (though there is some disagreement on this). If you don't confess and later get caught, you get all that plus a felony charge.
-
Alito goes out of his way to say this is different than Obergafell, Loving, Lawrence, etc. in a seeming effort to reassure people that this isn't the beginning of the end of key rights expansion of the Warren and Berger eras. But his justification (the human life worthy of protection) seems to rely on a logic that, if followed consistently, would lead to an outright ban on abortion rather than returning it to the states.
-
Democrats have spent more time openly fretting about all the other things that might fall rather than abortion itself. Why is this? Does it have to do with polling? Maybe concerns about more socially conservative blacks and Latinos that still vote Democratic, but aren't particularly fired up about this topic?
-
Matt Yglesias argues that, lacking any other information, you would put more odds that it was a conservative leak just because there are more conservative judges. I'm warming to the idea that this was leaked by a conservative clerk that was worried about a defection. It is notable that they leaked a 2 month old draft, not a current one. But I'm still not sure I think a conservative leak is more probable.
-
There's a good chance we'll never know who the leaker is.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
-
INteresting analyses. I have not been following situation super closely, but looking from the outside, it is fascinating.
-
The Republican women state senators of South Carolina are now scolding their male colleagues for pushing anti-abortion bills that have no rape/incest exceptions, and one regrets voting for the "heartbeat" bill:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/09/08/south-carolina-republican-abortion-rape/
...
[Republican State Senator] Shealy also voted to ban abortions after six weeks. In fact, she co-sponsored the bill, telling her colleagues during a floor debate last year that the legislation “protects the life of the unborn with a heartbeat.”
On Wednesday — about a year-and-a-half later — she found herself denouncing the new antiabortion legislation and scolding her male colleagues for trying to pass it. In doing so, she told them that women are smart enough to run households and businesses, to take care of children and aging parents.
“The only thing that we are not smart enough to do is take care of our own bodies. We need men in government, not medical professionals, to do that,” she said sarcastically, adding, “The South Carolina legislature — we know best.”
...
Two other Republican women state senators are quoted as well, with various arguments challenging their male colleagues on trying to pass strict bans on abortions without exceptions. -
Texas and abortion …
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/09/health/abortion-restrictions-texas/index.html
The story is about Texas women with severely developmentally challenged fetuses, the sort of fetuses expected to stillbirth or die in agony soon after delivery, having to travel to another state to get abortions to save their own lives.
One anecdote that struck me is this: an obstetrician advises a woman with multiple miscarriage history to not pregnant in Texas. Why? Because pregnancy for that woman, given her miscarriages in the past, is considered very high risk, and the obstetrician cannot perform abortion under Texas law unless she can show that the pregnant woman is about to die if abortion is not performed.
Perhaps there is some logic to generally discourage women with multiple miscarriages from getting pregnant at all, in any state. Just not sure if this is a consequence anticipated by the folks who consider themselves pro-life or merely anti-abortion.
-
A list of random thoughts about the leak, the ruling, and he reaction
-
Lying to the SCOTUS Marshall is a felony. Imagine you're the leaker, say a law clerk. You'd have to think really hard about how well you've covered your tracks. If you admit to the leak you get fired, maybe disbarred, but not likely face legal charges (though there is some disagreement on this). If you don't confess and later get caught, you get all that plus a felony charge.
-
Alito goes out of his way to say this is different than Obergafell, Loving, Lawrence, etc. in a seeming effort to reassure people that this isn't the beginning of the end of key rights expansion of the Warren and Berger eras. But his justification (the human life worthy of protection) seems to rely on a logic that, if followed consistently, would lead to an outright ban on abortion rather than returning it to the states.
-
Democrats have spent more time openly fretting about all the other things that might fall rather than abortion itself. Why is this? Does it have to do with polling? Maybe concerns about more socially conservative blacks and Latinos that still vote Democratic, but aren't particularly fired up about this topic?
-
Matt Yglesias argues that, lacking any other information, you would put more odds that it was a conservative leak just because there are more conservative judges. I'm warming to the idea that this was leaked by a conservative clerk that was worried about a defection. It is notable that they leaked a 2 month old draft, not a current one. But I'm still not sure I think a conservative leak is more probable.
-
There's a good chance we'll never know who the leaker is.
@jon-nyc said in Dobbs observations a few days on:
Matt Yglesias argues that, lacking any other information, you would put more odds that it was a conservative leak just because there are more conservative judges. I'm warming to the idea that this was leaked by a conservative clerk that was worried about a defection. It is notable that they leaked a 2 month old draft, not a current one. But I'm still not sure I think a conservative leak is more probable.
A lot of calories were burned whatabouting the theory that this leak was from the right. I even recall whatabouting the 'leak' that the draft was legit, as just as leaky as the draft leak itself. All of that is wishful thinking and misdirection from the blatantly obvious cultural motivation behind whichever clerk pulled a Reality Winner to bravely become a part of history.
-
-
Texas and abortion …
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/09/health/abortion-restrictions-texas/index.html
The story is about Texas women with severely developmentally challenged fetuses, the sort of fetuses expected to stillbirth or die in agony soon after delivery, having to travel to another state to get abortions to save their own lives.
One anecdote that struck me is this: an obstetrician advises a woman with multiple miscarriage history to not pregnant in Texas. Why? Because pregnancy for that woman, given her miscarriages in the past, is considered very high risk, and the obstetrician cannot perform abortion under Texas law unless she can show that the pregnant woman is about to die if abortion is not performed.
Perhaps there is some logic to generally discourage women with multiple miscarriages from getting pregnant at all, in any state. Just not sure if this is a consequence anticipated by the folks who consider themselves pro-life or merely anti-abortion.
@Axtremus said in Dobbs observations a few days on:
One anecdote that struck me is this: an obstetrician advises a woman with multiple miscarriage history to not pregnant in Texas. Why? Because pregnancy for that woman, given her miscarriages in the past, is considered very high risk, and the obstetrician cannot perform abortion under Texas law unless she can show that the pregnant woman is about to die if abortion is not performed.
Perhaps there is some logic to generally discouraging women with multiple miscarriages to avoid getting pregnant at all, in any state. Just not sure if this is a consequence anticipated by the folks who consider themselves pro-life or merely anti-abortion.A simpler solution would be for the OB to recommend some form of contraception. BCPs and IUDs are cheap, effective and safe.
-
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/20/1143639556/vasectomies-dobbs-roe-abortion-contraception
More inquiries for vasectomies after Dobbs.
-
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/20/1143639556/vasectomies-dobbs-roe-abortion-contraception
More inquiries for vasectomies after Dobbs.
@Axtremus said in Dobbs observations a few days on:
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/20/1143639556/vasectomies-dobbs-roe-abortion-contraception
More inquiries for vasectomies after Dobbs.
Their body, their choice.
-
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/20/1143639556/vasectomies-dobbs-roe-abortion-contraception
More inquiries for vasectomies after Dobbs.
@Axtremus said in Dobbs observations a few days on:
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/20/1143639556/vasectomies-dobbs-roe-abortion-contraception
More inquiries for vasectomies after Dobbs.
Vasectomy is permanent (or almost so). The interesting thing is that the article points to abortion as a method of contraception.
"Safe, legal and rare."
-
Two years after Dobbs ...
https://www.vox.com/health/356512/pregnancy-america-crime-dobbs-justice
Pregnancy in America is starting to feel like a crime
The ripple effects of the fall of Roe extend far beyond abortion.Terrified you might be losing your pregnancy, you rush to the emergency room — only to be told that no one there will care for you, because they’re worried they could be accused of participating in an abortion. The staff tells you to drive to another hospital, but that will take hours, by which time, it might be too late.
.
Such frightening experiences are growing more common in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision, as doctors and other medical staff, fearful of the far-reaching effects of state abortion bans, are simply refusing to treat pregnant people at all.
... -
Wanna make abortion the law of the land? Simple - Codify it.
You can't codify it? Elect people who will, because democracy.
Everything else is political scaremongering.
In 1999, Regina McKnight, a 22-year-old Black woman in South Carolina, became the first person prosecuted for homicide after experiencing a stillbirth, according to Capital B. She was convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison for endangering her pregnancy through drug use, but her conviction was eventually overturned.
1999 was 25 years ago, by the way.
In the United States, the legal response to drug use during pregnancy varies by state:
- Some states classify drug use during pregnancy as child abuse or neglect. For example, in South Carolina, women can be prosecuted for child abuse if they use drugs while pregnant.
- Other states have laws requiring healthcare providers to report suspected prenatal drug use, which may lead to child protective services (CPS) involvement.
- Certain states have programs focusing on treatment rather than punishment, aiming to provide support and rehabilitation for pregnant women who use drugs.
-
Wanna make abortion the law of the land? Simple - Codify it.
You can't codify it? Elect people who will, because democracy.
Everything else is political scaremongering.
In 1999, Regina McKnight, a 22-year-old Black woman in South Carolina, became the first person prosecuted for homicide after experiencing a stillbirth, according to Capital B. She was convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison for endangering her pregnancy through drug use, but her conviction was eventually overturned.
1999 was 25 years ago, by the way.
In the United States, the legal response to drug use during pregnancy varies by state:
- Some states classify drug use during pregnancy as child abuse or neglect. For example, in South Carolina, women can be prosecuted for child abuse if they use drugs while pregnant.
- Other states have laws requiring healthcare providers to report suspected prenatal drug use, which may lead to child protective services (CPS) involvement.
- Certain states have programs focusing on treatment rather than punishment, aiming to provide support and rehabilitation for pregnant women who use drugs.
@George-K said in Dobbs observations a few days on:
Wanna make abortion the law of the land? Simple - Codify it.
You can't codify it? Elect people who will, because democracy.
Everything else is political scaremongering.
That really doesn’t follow. It actually is possible that people are getting inferior care than they did pre-Dobbs due to legal concerns of physicians and hospitals.
-
@George-K said in Dobbs observations a few days on:
Wanna make abortion the law of the land? Simple - Codify it.
You can't codify it? Elect people who will, because democracy.
Everything else is political scaremongering.
That really doesn’t follow. It actually is possible that people are getting inferior care than they did pre-Dobbs due to legal concerns of physicians and hospitals.
@jon-nyc said in Dobbs observations a few days on:
@George-K said in Dobbs observations a few days on:
Wanna make abortion the law of the land? Simple - Codify it.
You can't codify it? Elect people who will, because democracy.
Everything else is political scaremongering.
That really doesn’t follow. It actually is possible that people are getting inferior care than they did pre-Dobbs due to legal concerns of physicians and hospitals.
I'd have to be shown. Several of the stories Ax has posted along these lines turn out to be Surgery Centers, hospitals without OB departments. etc.
I've never seen a hospital with a functioning OB Unit turn away a patient such as Ax is describing. It's what those guys do...Care for pregnant women.
-
@jon-nyc said in Dobbs observations a few days on:
@George-K said in Dobbs observations a few days on:
Wanna make abortion the law of the land? Simple - Codify it.
You can't codify it? Elect people who will, because democracy.
Everything else is political scaremongering.
That really doesn’t follow. It actually is possible that people are getting inferior care than they did pre-Dobbs due to legal concerns of physicians and hospitals.
I'd have to be shown. Several of the stories Ax has posted along these lines turn out to be Surgery Centers, hospitals without OB departments. etc.
I've never seen a hospital with a functioning OB Unit turn away a patient such as Ax is describing. It's what those guys do...Care for pregnant women.
@Jolly said in Dobbs observations a few days on:
@jon-nyc said in Dobbs observations a few days on:
@George-K said in Dobbs observations a few days on:
Wanna make abortion the law of the land? Simple - Codify it.
You can't codify it? Elect people who will, because democracy.
Everything else is political scaremongering.
That really doesn’t follow. It actually is possible that people are getting inferior care than they did pre-Dobbs due to legal concerns of physicians and hospitals.
I'd have to be shown. Several of the stories Ax has posted along these lines turn out to be Surgery Centers, hospitals without OB departments. etc.
I've never seen a hospital with a functioning OB Unit turn away a patient such as Ax is describing. It's what those guys do...Care for pregnant women.
Doesn't change the trend that pregnant women are getting less care. Even when hospitals with OB units continue to provide care, more surgical centers and more hospitals without OB units turning away pregnant patients still means pregnant patients are getting less care. You can also add on something you yourself mention every now and then, that more and more hospitals are closing down their OB units, which makes the problem even worse. The Dobbs ruling ain't helping with getting more OB units opened.
-
Marked increase of young people getting sterilization surgeries after Dobbs:
... look at how many 18- to 30-year-olds were getting sterilized before and after the ruling.
.
They found sharp increases in both male and female sterilization. Tubal ligations doubled from June 2022 to September 2023, and vasectomies increased over three times during that same time ...Tubal ligations among young people had been slowly rising for years, but the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization had a discernible impact. ...
-
@Jolly said in Dobbs observations a few days on:
@jon-nyc said in Dobbs observations a few days on:
@George-K said in Dobbs observations a few days on:
Wanna make abortion the law of the land? Simple - Codify it.
You can't codify it? Elect people who will, because democracy.
Everything else is political scaremongering.
That really doesn’t follow. It actually is possible that people are getting inferior care than they did pre-Dobbs due to legal concerns of physicians and hospitals.
I'd have to be shown. Several of the stories Ax has posted along these lines turn out to be Surgery Centers, hospitals without OB departments. etc.
I've never seen a hospital with a functioning OB Unit turn away a patient such as Ax is describing. It's what those guys do...Care for pregnant women.
Doesn't change the trend that pregnant women are getting less care. Even when hospitals with OB units continue to provide care, more surgical centers and more hospitals without OB units turning away pregnant patients still means pregnant patients are getting less care. You can also add on something you yourself mention every now and then, that more and more hospitals are closing down their OB units, which makes the problem even worse. The Dobbs ruling ain't helping with getting more OB units opened.
@Axtremus said in Dobbs observations a few days on:
@Jolly said in Dobbs observations a few days on:
@jon-nyc said in Dobbs observations a few days on:
@George-K said in Dobbs observations a few days on:
Wanna make abortion the law of the land? Simple - Codify it.
You can't codify it? Elect people who will, because democracy.
Everything else is political scaremongering.
That really doesn’t follow. It actually is possible that people are getting inferior care than they did pre-Dobbs due to legal concerns of physicians and hospitals.
I'd have to be shown. Several of the stories Ax has posted along these lines turn out to be Surgery Centers, hospitals without OB departments. etc.
I've never seen a hospital with a functioning OB Unit turn away a patient such as Ax is describing. It's what those guys do...Care for pregnant women.
Doesn't change the trend that pregnant women are getting less care. Even when hospitals with OB units continue to provide care, more surgical centers and more hospitals without OB units turning away pregnant patients still means pregnant patients are getting less care. You can also add on something you yourself mention every now and then, that more and more hospitals are closing down their OB units, which makes the problem even worse. The Dobbs ruling ain't helping with getting more OB units opened.
Stick to computers.
-
Louisiana Reclassifies Drugs Used in Abortions as Controlled Dangerous Substances
Mifepristone and misoprostol.
-
Woman charged with murder for taking abortion pill sues prosecutors
About one of the prosecutors sued:
Earlier this year, Ramirez agreed to pay a $1,250 fine under a settlement reached with the State Bar of Texas and to have his license held in a probated suspension for 12 months for his prosecution of acts clearly not criminal under state law. He remains the Starr County district attorney.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/08/13/texas-ectopic-pregnancy-abortion/
Two women filed complaints against Texas hospitals they allege turned them away for emergency care, risking their lives and violating federal law.
In a complaint to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kyleigh Thurman said that in February 2023, Ascension Seton Williamson Hospital in Round Rock, Tex., discharged her without treating her ectopic pregnancy or transferring her to another hospital. It denied her treatment again when she returned days later with vaginal bleeding, she said.
The delay caused her fallopian tube to rupture, she said. According to the complaint, the hospital treated her only after her OB/GYN “pleaded” with staff to provide the necessary care.
“For weeks, I was in and out of emergency rooms trying to get the abortion that I needed to save my future fertility and life,” ... -
Ectopic pregnancies are not "aborted." The treatment is surgical intervention via laparoscopy. It is a surgical emergency, worthy of being done at 2AM.
THere's something missing in this story.
