oski003 said:

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/16/us/chicago-missing-pregnant-woman/index.html

this is some ozarks type stuff

---

It's terrible, but I don't see what it has to do with what we're talking about here.

All your questions about future behavior apply but you forgot the taxation of the service performed on the state's citizen...

At some point the government will try to tax it.

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/16/us/chicago-missing-pregnant-woman/index.html

this is some ozarks type stuff

---

It's terrible, but I don't see what it has to do with what we're talking about here.

---

Move the goal posts, change the subject, distract. SOP.

I'm just messing around as this was on today's news. Please don't beat me up. I now know you are big and strong (or at least extremely skilled at fighting) because you will never need a gun to defend yourself.

And you need a gun because it will love you and make you warm when you nozzle up to the nozzle after popping some one in the ass. Yeah baby...HE-MAN...like Clint talking to the empty chair.

Yeah...I'm kidding around too!

oski003 said:

---

I'm just messing around as this was on today's news. Please don't beat me up. I now know you are big and strong (or at least extremely skilled at fighting) because you will never need a gun to defend yourself.

---

I didn't realize that asking a question would look like a threat to beat someone up. Guess I better check my privilege.

Some of the BI political thought leaders would really benefit from finding a larger room to share their grand insights.

I was speaking to AB (not Sycasey) who accused me of moving the goal posts, changing the subject, distracting, etc... when I was just messing around. In turn, I am mocking him for his bravado in another post as he criticized another poster for needing a gun to protect his household because "Frankly if I want to hurt or kill anyone I don't need a gun."

KenBurnski said:

---

Some of the BI political thought leaders would really benefit from finding a larger room to share their grand insights.

---

And some others would benefit from not clicking on posts that are obviously political.

Frankly Oski003...you're a tone deaf jackass and idiot if you're joking around about abortion and the murder of a young woman who had her fetus removed.

Your last comment is way more on-point than "Move the goal posts, change the subject, distract. SOP."

Agreed that my post was a bit callous. I only posted it because the story is crazy and mirrors an event that happened on one of BI's favorite shows. I didn't want to start a new thread for it. I figured I'd throw a dark comment in a dark topic.

No way. It's too impressive seeing auto fellatio.

OaktownBear said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Bears2thDoc said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

I'm against women being used as props in religious theater.

---

I'm actually for abortion and the right to choose, but I don't think it is in our collective best interest to have the states engage in a tit for tat over each others laws. The Alabama law does not effect the people of California just as California laws do not effect Alabama. Further, using a non-profit institution like a University as the weapon in the aforementioned tit for tat simply harms the Universities and is useless in motivating Alabama to change the law. If it hurts your own institutions, does not impact your constituents and does not help achieve your goal, why do it? You are hurting your state and constituents for political gain.

I know we are not in a good spot as a country, but I don't see why it is beneficial to create new barriers between us. I'm sure there are plenty of issues the people of Alabama find wrong with California, and I don't see what would give them the right to try and impose those views on us. What would prevent Alabama from banning Auburn from playing at Cal over Berkeley being a sanctuary city or marijuana legalization, and again, why should it be the schools that suffer the consequences of the decisions of their governments?

---

Dude, I'm reasonably confident you don't understand how this works.
To say its Alabama, it doesn't affect California is crazy.
Though I do not see this being the case to do it, the religious right wants to get a state law passed that is wrapped in such a way that John Roberts' SC will have no problem overturning Roe......and that will affect CA.

Not to mention the shear disregard for the rights of women, whether or not they live in CA.
Again, there is no middle ground here, One either supports the rights of women or one does't.
Clearly, you would rather support a football team access to money over the rights of your wife, your daughter, your granddaughter or any other woman for that matter.

---

I'm 100% confident you don't understand. If the SC overturns Roe, there will literally be no effect in California. Overturning Roe would result in states having a much broader right to regulate and/or prohibit abortion, as was the case pre-Roe. Unlike the US Constitution which has no express privacy right, the California constitution has an express right to privacy (enacted by initiative in 1972) which has been the bedrock of abortion rights in the state. California is a liberal state - if Roe is overturned there is literally 0% chance that California enacts laws limiting abortion.

Of course, other states might do so. That is how our Republic is supposed to work - states should be free to enact local laws and take different approaches to moral and legal issues. That is why Roe was a bad decision - 9 Justices took a heated and controversial moral and ethical issue out of the hands of the voters. It resulted in people like you thinking there is "no middle ground" and lead people to think it is a zero sum issue - anything less than an unfettered right to abortion is unacceptable. Do you take the same approach for the Second Amendment gun rights? Can guns rights be limited and/or regulated? Of course they can, and abortion is no different.

Even if you support a women's right to choose (which I generally do), it is not inconsistent to acknowledge that there should be limits at which point other considerations (such as a viable fetus) need to be considered. Roe in fact acknowledged that fact in it trimester-by-trimester approach. There is and should be a middle ground. Unfortunately, Roe has wrongly eliminated the possibility for voters and states to decide where the line should be drawn.

---

I strongly agree with you in part and strongly disagree with you in part. The US Constitution very specifically takes its power directly from the people. This was an intentional response to the ineffectiveness of the Articles of Confederation which took its power from the states. There is a clear division of rights. Over simplifying it, there are individual rights granted in the Constitution and those trump the rights of the federal and state governments. There are federal rights granted and those trump the rights of the state governments. The rest are reserved for the states. Effectively when a state enacts a law, no matter how democratically, the job of SCOTUS is to determine whether that law interferes with the rights of the federal government or with the rights of the individual.

Quote:

---

I'm 100% confident you don't understand. If the SC overturns Roe, there will literally be no effect in California. Overturning Roe would result in states having a much broader right to regulate and/or prohibit abortion, as was the case pre-Roe. Unlike the US Constitution which has no express privacy right, the California constitution has an express right to privacy (enacted by initiative in 1972) which has been the bedrock of abortion rights in the state. California is a liberal state - if Roe is overturned there is literally 0% chance that California enacts laws limiting abortion.

---

Very strongly agree with you here. The Supreme Court is charged with determining whether laws of the federal or state governments are constitutional or unconstitutional. In this case, it is determining whether there is a state law is interfering with individual rights protected by the Constitution. SCOTUS does not make any laws. It does not interfere with the rights of individuals. SCOTUS will never say abortion is illegal. SCOTUS will only say whether a state's restrictions on the actions of individuals is allowed. If SCOTUS overturns Roe, it will allow the states to act. Not mandate it. This is a key political point. As SCOTUS has turned more conservative, what that means for liberals is that they need to be more diligent in voting and pushing for policies they want their states to enact and not rely on SCOTUS as a back stop.

Quote:

---

Of course, other states might do so. That is how our Republic is supposed to work - states should be free to enact local laws and take different approaches to moral and legal issues. That is why Roe was a bad decision - 9 Justices took a heated and controversial moral and ethical issue out of the hands of the voters.

---

Very strongly disagree with you here. Yes, that is how our Republic is supposed to work IF THE LAWS THE STATE ENACTS DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. If Roe was a bad decision (and I admit that I do not think that it was) it is a bad decision because it wrongly interpreted an individual right where there wasn't one. If SCOTUS correctly made THAT decision, the decision is correct. Taking a heated and controversial moral and ethical issue out of the hands of voters is absolutely irrelevant. Brown vs. Board of Education also took a heated and controversial moral and ethical issue out of the hands of voters. If a law interferes with an individual's constitutional rights, that is SCOTUS' duty.

Quote:

---

It resulted in people like you thinking there is "no middle ground" and lead people to think it is a zero sum issue - anything less than an unfettered right to abortion is unacceptable. Do you take the same approach for the Second Amendment gun rights? Can guns rights be limited and/or regulated? Of course they can, and abortion is no different.

Even if you support a women's right to choose (which I generally do), it is not inconsistent to acknowledge that there should be limits at which point other considerations (such as a viable fetus) need to be considered. Roe in fact acknowledged that fact in it trimester-by-trimester approach. There is and should be a middle ground. Unfortunately, Roe has wrongly eliminated the possibility for voters and states to decide where the line should be drawn.

---

Regarding claiming OP thinks it is a zero sum issue and anything less than an unfettered right to abortion is unacceptable, I don't see an indication of that. Further, Roe does not eliminate the possibility for voters to decide where the line should be drawn. Of course the states can have some reasonable regulation on both guns and abortion. In this case, however, the Alabama law is barely pretending to do so. It would be the equivalent of a state saying you can own whatever gun you want, but all forms of ammunition are illegal. I guarantee you that such a law would be overturned. SCOTUS has upheld what it deems to be reasonable regulations on abortions. Rather than saying the states can't regulate abortion in the first or second trimester, SCOTUS has basically said state has a lot of liberty to regulate in the third trimester excepting abortions for medical issues. There is not a ban on all regulation in the first two trimesters. It is that regulations need to meet a higher standard as the decision tips more in the balance of the individual constitutional right. For instance, most states have laws requiring parental notification or consent before a minor can receive an abortion. What the current case law DOES do is essentially eliminate a state's ability to create regulations that are primarily designed to frustrate the individual's constitutional right. That is the same as with the right to bear arms or for any other constitutional right.

I would also say that I agree with you that it is not inconsistent to acknowledge there should be other considerations on abortion. Where I disagree with you is the implication that to think otherwise is a widely held belief. Yes there are people that think there should be zero regulation of abortion whatsoever. Just as there are people who think the second amendment gives individuals the right to rocket launchers or even nuclear warheads. Poll after poll shows that in both of these cases that those extreme views are not held by many.

There is absolutely a reasonable debate to be had whether abortion should be a constitutional right and as long as you make your arguments in that sphere, you are on stronger ground. However, case law on abortion is not interfering any more with states rights or the people's right to pass laws and regulations than it does with any other issue where a constitutional right has been determined to exist. Regulations can and do exist. SCOTUS has never said they can't

---

I think we agree on most of what you wrote. If there is a constitutional right (e.g., if Roe was correctly decided), then it is entirely appropriate for the SC and other federal courts to restrict state laws that unreasonably interfere with that right or other constitutional rights (federal or individual).

We probably disagree with what rights are to be found in the constitution - but those are reasonable disagreements (living constitution, etc.). My view is that when a court goes out of its way to find "new constitutional rights" - as it surely did in Roe (and Griswold before it) - then the effect is to take issues that had been in the hands of the people and to "constituionalize them" to a great extent. Post Roe, states could still pass laws regulate abortion, but couldn't outlaw it and couldn't unreasonably burden that right - with "unreasonable burdens" being determined in non-stop litigation.

As a matter of jurisprudence, I think finding new constitutional rights is bad - in large part because on it creates intractable battles that can never be solved through compromise/debate and, unfortunately, has made the courts (and judicial nominations) viewed as entirely political.

As Scalia wrote in his Casey dissent:

"By foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish. We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining."

BearGoggles said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

I'm against women being used as props in religious theater.

---

I'm against unborn babies being treated as props to advance extreme left wing theater. See how this works?

I'm actually against the Alabama law, but it is disingenuous to pretend that abortion isn't a very difficult political and moral issue. There are moral and legal arguments in support of both positions, with much nuance and balancing of interests (women's liberty/health vs. a viable or potentially viable life).

There are VERY difficult moral aspects to terminating a life or, if you prefer, potential life. Most people on opposite sides of this issue deeply and in good faith believe their view is the moral and correct one.

As a country, we need to stop demonizing and boycotting people who in good faith have different political/religious/moral/legal views. It is toxic.


**********************

Well said. I'm pro-choice myself (in the global sense) which is why I very much support the citizens of individual states choosing what laws to enact within their state. If you live in Alabama and you want to preserve your ability to seek an abortion, then move someplace else more in tune with your ethics, philosophy and lifestyle (such as just about anywhere else in the country). I've never understood why one group feels the need to impose its views on other groups so absolutely and with such zeal. It's some control-freak, binary-thinking, power-trip mode that I just don't get. It reminds me of the gay couple who, rather than find a more open-minded baker on the next block to accept their hard-earned dinero, decided instead to flex their muscles and teach that religious fundamentalist a lesson or two, by G-d. We're all so ready to be outraged and victimized.

2th Doc, why do you care if the tiny, insignificant state of Alabama outlaws abortion? How does that effect your life? Do you think the pro-life zombies will start multiplying and swallow up the entire south? So what? Stay in California, that's what I'll do. But no, instead let's virtue-signal (at someone else's expense, I might add) and punish those sub-humans who dare adhere to a different point of view! They must be crushed! Your faux-outrage is silly and pretentious, but it's also dangerous.

Incidentally, these types of spats are the opening salvos of the eventual break-up of the U.S., which in my opinion will occur within the next 15-20 years following a prolonged economic depression and which is long overdue. Think USSR circa 1975. At the end of the day, I want everyone to get exactly what they want, religiously, economically, philosophically, aesthetically, you name it; and the best way to do that is to divide up and peacefully self-segregate into smaller, more autonomous and more socially cohesive units, such as the Native American tribes of yore. Like I said, I'm pro-choice.

---

Big C said:

---

We used to be able to have civil OT discussions here, without the need for a separate board. Those were the days. But I get it: abortion. Tends to get folks riled up, one way or the other.

Oops, I better weigh in: I'm pro-choice, but I don't think games should be boycotted for reasons like this.

---

On some levels I wish I didn't reply but getting trolled and some jackassery negated that.

I wouldn't boycott a game over this because I don't think it will make much of a difference. However if others feel they should (from either side) I'm fine with that and respect it. It's their right. If there was an organized boycott that might be different.

Otherwise, there's little or no reason why I'd ever go to Alabama. A FB game isn't enough...or anything short of someone handing me $1m bucks. I will go to the Auburn game when they come to Cal...even if I spit beer and cry from a beat down.

This law is an early attempt to establish Christian Sharia law in the US. No one is requiring Christian people to have abortions so this is just a way to give their beliefs the force of law.

BancroftBear93 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

I'm against women being used as props in religious theater.

---

I'm against unborn babies being treated as props to advance extreme left wing theater. See how this works?

I'm actually against the Alabama law, but it is disingenuous to pretend that abortion isn't a very difficult political and moral issue. There are moral and legal arguments in support of both positions, with much nuance and balancing of interests (women's liberty/health vs. a viable or potentially viable life).

There are VERY difficult moral aspects to terminating a life or, if you prefer, potential life. Most people on opposite sides of this issue deeply and in good faith believe their view is the moral and correct one.

As a country, we need to stop demonizing and boycotting people who in good faith have different political/religious/moral/legal views. It is toxic.


**********************

Well said. I'm pro-choice myself (in the global sense) which is why I very much support the citizens of individual states choosing what laws to enact within their state. If you live in Alabama and you want to preserve your ability to seek an abortion, then move someplace else more in tune with your ethics, philosophy and lifestyle (such as just about anywhere else in the country). I've never understood why one group feels the need to impose its views on other groups so absolutely and with such zeal. It's some control-freak, binary-thinking, power-trip mode that I just don't get. It reminds me of the gay couple who, rather than find a more open-minded baker on the next block to accept their hard-earned dinero, decided instead to flex their muscles and teach that religious fundamentalist a lesson or two, by G-d. We're all so ready to be outraged and victimized.

2th Doc, why do you care if the tiny, insignificant state of Alabama outlaws abortion? How does that effect your life? Do you think the pro-life zombies will start multiplying and swallow up the entire south? So what? Stay in California, that's what I'll do. But no, instead let's virtue-signal (at someone else's expense, I might add) and punish those sub-humans who dare adhere to a different point of view! They must be crushed! Your faux-outrage is silly and pretentious, but it's also dangerous.

Incidentally, these types of spats are the opening salvos of the eventual break-up of the U.S., which in my opinion will occur within the next 15-20 years following a prolonged economic depression and which is long overdue. Think USSR circa 1975. At the end of the day, I want everyone to get exactly what they want, religiously, economically, philosophically, aesthetically, you name it; and the best way to do that is to divide up and peacefully self-segregate into smaller, more autonomous and more socially cohesive units, such as the Native American tribes of yore. Like I said, I'm pro-choice.

---

---

You're pro-choice, yet you support a state forcing a rape victim to give birth to their perpetrator's baby.

You support a state's right to force a 12-year-old girl to give birth to her dad's baby.

BancroftBear93, you must supported slavery, too.

It's definitely not pro-choice by to allow majorities to force their Sharia laws on fellow citizens. If you want to live in a country run by theocrats, there are plenty of places in the world you can move to.

EDIT: I do hope if somehow these laws start being upheld that compassionate people start a charity to help people travel to non-****hole states where they can receive appropriate healthcare.

Bears2thDoc said:

---

In light of today"s legislative action in Alabama, Oregon should boycott the Aug 31 Auburn game in Texas.
So what if it's in Texas.
This legislative action must be opposed by any means necessary.
There is no middle ground.

---

Better yet, I think it wise to boycott everything you disagree with to virtue signal your own morality and demonize those who oppose. This will remind everybody how morally self-assured and superior you are without actually crafting a compelling case for it.

This will naturally resign you to being a prisoner in your own home in solitude with your own thoughts in a dark echo chamber of your own making.

77Bear said:

---

The Alabama law is at its core an attempt to bring a case to the SCOTUS to review Roe v. Wade.

---

The state lawmakers have acknowledged as much

BancroftBear93 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

BancroftBear93 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

I'm against women being used as props in religious theater.

---

I'm against unborn babies being treated as props to advance extreme left wing theater. See how this works?

I'm actually against the Alabama law, but it is disingenuous to pretend that abortion isn't a very difficult political and moral issue. There are moral and legal arguments in support of both positions, with much nuance and balancing of interests (women's liberty/health vs. a viable or potentially viable life).

There are VERY difficult moral aspects to terminating a life or, if you prefer, potential life. Most people on opposite sides of this issue deeply and in good faith believe their view is the moral and correct one.

As a country, we need to stop demonizing and boycotting people who in good faith have different political/religious/moral/legal views. It is toxic.


**********************

Well said. I'm pro-choice myself (in the global sense) which is why I very much support the citizens of individual states choosing what laws to enact within their state. If you live in Alabama and you want to preserve your ability to seek an abortion, then move someplace else more in tune with your ethics, philosophy and lifestyle (such as just about anywhere else in the country). I've never understood why one group feels the need to impose its views on other groups so absolutely and with such zeal. It's some control-freak, binary-thinking, power-trip mode that I just don't get. It reminds me of the gay couple who, rather than find a more open-minded baker on the next block to accept their hard-earned dinero, decided instead to flex their muscles and teach that religious fundamentalist a lesson or two, by G-d. We're all so ready to be outraged and victimized.

2th Doc, why do you care if the tiny, insignificant state of Alabama outlaws abortion? How does that effect your life? Do you think the pro-life zombies will start multiplying and swallow up the entire south? So what? Stay in California, that's what I'll do. But no, instead let's virtue-signal (at someone else's expense, I might add) and punish those sub-humans who dare adhere to a different point of view! They must be crushed! Your faux-outrage is silly and pretentious, but it's also dangerous.

Incidentally, these types of spats are the opening salvos of the eventual break-up of the U.S., which in my opinion will occur within the next 15-20 years following a prolonged economic depression and which is long overdue. Think USSR circa 1975. At the end of the day, I want everyone to get exactly what they want, religiously, economically, philosophically, aesthetically, you name it; and the best way to do that is to divide up and peacefully self-segregate into smaller, more autonomous and more socially cohesive units, such as the Native American tribes of yore. Like I said, I'm pro-choice.

---

---

You're pro-choice, yet you support a state forcing a rape victim to give birth to their perpetrator's baby.

You support a state's right to force a 12-year-old girl to give birth to her dad's baby.

BancroftBear93, you must supported slavery, too.

************************

You're so hysterically illogical that I love you. Yes, you're right. I want all of that. I want the exceptions that swallow the rule, every time. And because I don't oppose something you don't like, I must support its polar opposite. That's just the way it works, right? And yes, I am 155 years old and I actively supported slavery until my first birthday, but alas, I lost. How did you know? lol

Are you sure you went to Cal?

---

---

You wrote that states should be allowed to enact any law they deem fit. "I'm pro-choice myself (in the global sense) which is why I very much support the citizens of individual states choosing what laws to enact within their state," you wrote.

It's a simple question. Please answer it: Do you believe the state of Alabama should be allowed to ban abortion in the case of rape or incest? Yes or no?

By your statement, it seems like you would say "yes." Am I wrong?

Also, you made this statement: "If you live in Alabama and you want to preserve your ability to seek an abortion, then move someplace else more in tune with your ethics, philosophy and lifestyle (such as just about anywhere else in the country)."

Okay, give me an explanation for how those affected by this law can move out of the state if they are unable to move due to family, lack of money, etc?

Another statement: "2th Doc, why do you care if the tiny, insignificant state of Alabama outlaws abortion? How does that effect your life? Do you think the pro-life zombies will start multiplying and swallow up the entire south? So what? Stay in California, that's what I'll do."

As mentioned above, the goal is to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. So how does this law not affect Californians?

Also, learn to use quotes.

BearGoggles said:

---

As a country, we need to stop demonizing and boycotting people who in good faith have different political/religious/moral/legal views. It is toxic.

---

I am fine with people having whatever views they want. But this is a law. Those people are forcing their view onto other people. I think resisting that oppression is appropriate.

25To20 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Of course, other states might do so. That is how our Republic is supposed to work - states should be free to enact local laws and take different approaches to moral and legal issues.

---

This does get complicated, though. If one state has legal abortion and another one doesn't, what do you do about people traveling from one to another to get an abortion? So at some point it is incumbent upon the federal government to weigh in. (Same issue applies to gun control.)

---

That is an interesting point. Although it would not be cheap, I wonder how soon pro-choice groups will start funding transportation for pregnant women who want/need an abortion from a no abortions state to an abortions okay state. If that happens, will the no abortions states attempt or be able to prevent their citizens from leaving the state to get an abortion? Can a state make it a crime to leave the state to engage in an activity illegal in their state, but legal in another state? Can a state make it illegal to offer to offer to transport someone out of the state for purposes that are illegal in the originating state, but legal in the destination state?

Of course, this presupposes that further restrictions on abortions in some states are upheld judicially.

---

This is not a theoretical question. In the Georgia law the fetus is a "person" with "full legal recognition" (so more protection than a Dreamer in Georgia gets). Therefore if you travel out of state for a legal abortion, Georgia may prosecute you for conspiracy to commit murder.

Both the Georgia law and Alabama law are narrowed to those who perform an abortion. It would therefore not apply to your feared applications.

Code Section 16-12-141 is the exact section that was amended to include the heartbeat provision. If a person performs an abortion in violation of the heartbeat bill, then Code Section 16-12-140 applies. It does not impose life imprisonment on anybody, and Georgia courts have held that it does not apply to a woman who self-terminates, only to third parties who perform an abortion.

BancroftBear93 said:

---

Well said. I'm pro-choice myself (in the global sense) which is why I very much support the citizens of individual states choosing what laws to enact within their state. If you live in Alabama and you want to preserve your ability to seek an abortion, then move someplace else more in tune with your ethics, philosophy and lifestyle (such as just about anywhere else in the country).

---

I mean, you realize that not everyone has the means to move wherever they want whenever they want, right?

oski003 said:

---

Both the Georgia law and Alabama law are narrowed to those who perform an abortion. It would therefore not apply to your feared applications.

Code Section 16-12-141 is the exact section that was amended to include the heartbeat provision. If a person performs an abortion in violation of the heartbeat bill, then Code Section 16-12-140 applies. It does not impose life imprisonment on anybody, and Georgia courts have held that it does not apply to a woman who self-terminates, only to third parties who perform an abortion.

---

Georgia courts have already opined on a law that just passed?

They have previously ruled on the scope of the law as far as who is prosecuted under it. What has been amended is the definition of a criminal abortion.

oski003 said:

---

They have previously ruled on the scope of the law as far as who is prosecuted under it. What has been amended is the definition of a criminal abortion.

---

Can you provide a link in regards to this court review?

Also, what you describe regarding how the law will be applied is disputed widely. Lot's of opinions on it. I've attached an Atlanta Journal article on it. Sounds like a poorly written law.

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/who-could-prosecuted-under-georgia-heartbeat-law/sjmrBSuG3ZT4eM9kkAKPuL/

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-12/article-5/16-12-140/

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20192020/HB/481

OaktownBear said:

---

If you can find where the proposed/passed laws in Virginia or New York allow for infanticide, please cite it. The Virginia law attempted to do two things:

1. Change the standard for third trimester abortions from cases where risk to the mother's life was substantial and irremediable to allow for an abortion where the mother's physical or mental safety are at risk

2. Change the requirement from allowing the abortion only with sign off from 3 doctors to sign off from one.

It changed nothing with respect to how an infant that is born due to an induced labor or termination would be treated. Northam was moronic in how he explained "what goes on", but what he was talking about was not leaving a baby to die. He was talking about a nonviable baby that could not be kept alive naturally and determining with the family whether they should resuscitate just like they would do if I were in a massive car accident and in the same situation. But in any case, what he said had nothing to do with what the law did. It is not legal to withhold medical care or neglect a person who has been born.

If there is concern that the standard for terminating a pregnancy in the third trimester was too low, that is a reasonable debate. (personally, I think something between the existing law and the proposed law would be appropriate. I don't like either standard).

The New York law also did not change anything with respect to how a live born baby is treated. If a baby is born either by induced labor or induced termination, they are treated like any other fully born human. The law does not allow a viable baby to be left to die. No one has proposed to make a law allowing infanticide and no one in their right mind would support it. Again, if the standard for allowing an abortion in the third trimester there is too low, that is something to be discussed.

And just to inform my post, I do not believe that abortions should be allowed in the third trimester unless the mother's life is in jeopardy or in the case that the fetus is brain dead or brain impaired to the point where no meaningful life can be had (I'm sure I could define that better) and in the case of risk to a mother's life if a procedure can be performed to deliver the baby in a way that does not risk the mother's life and that gives the baby the best chance of survival, it should be done. My personal belief is that fetus crosses the threshold at a level of meaningful consciousness. I don't define personhood at conception or at heartbeat. I define it when intelligence has crossed a threshold. Normal fetuses have crossed that threshold in the third trimester. That is why I don't like the proposed language in the Virginia bill. Mental safety doesn't balance that for me.

---

The NY law repealed Section 4164 of the NY public health law. 4164 explicitly guaranteed that a child born alive had certain rights, such as the right to medical care from a separate doctor, that medical records of all attempts to save the baby had to be maintained, etc. Eliminating those guarantees allows babies who survive abortions to be allowed to die by withholding medical care. That's infanticide.

Virginia...I don't have time to look it up - and I don't remember the exact language - but the bill's sponsor was caught on film effectively saying the bill would allow born alive babies to be terminated. (that's my admittedly very loose summary). The governor subsequently choose words that most people understood to say would allow the mother and doctor to decide what to do with a baby that survived an abortion (i.e., terminate it). That's infanticide.

wifeisafurd said:

---

77Bear said:

---

The Alabama law is at its core an attempt to bring a case to the SCOTUS to review Roe v. Wade.

---

People seem to think it is a given that SCOTUS will hear these abortion laws after the lower courts knock them out. Yet SCOTUS continues to not grant cert. to hear state appeals, and does so by wide majorities. The media and some people in certain states may SCOTUS will hear the cases, but legal scholars don't.

Supreme Court is not eager to overturn Roe vs. Wade at least not soon https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-supreme-court-abortion-roe-overturn-20190515-story.html

---

If the Alabama Supreme Court upholds the law, (it wasn't that long ago that the Alabama Supreme Court was nationally embarassed by the conduct of it's Chief Justice Roy Moore, twice removed) so it is likely that in Alabama the law could be found constitutional. Then if Trump's Court declines to hear the case, the Alabama law stands without Trump's Court having to overturn Roe versus Wade.

Why is Oregon taking heat on their game? Mississippi has an equally vile and almost identical law and Cal Fans aren't suggesting a boycott of the Ole Miss game. Why criticize Oregon if Cal won't even discuss the same action? Maybe Oregon fans are less conflicted?

The Alabama Supreme Court cannot overturn the SCA. It would be absolutely wrong and shocking if they did. This has nothing to do with the conduct that Roy Moore was accused of doing while in his 30's.

sp4149 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

77Bear said:

---

The Alabama law is at its core an attempt to bring a case to the SCOTUS to review Roe v. Wade.

---

People seem to think it is a given that SCOTUS will hear these abortion laws after the lower courts knock them out. Yet SCOTUS continues to not grant cert. to hear state appeals, and does so by wide majorities. The media and some people in certain states may SCOTUS will hear the cases, but legal scholars don't.

Supreme Court is not eager to overturn Roe vs. Wade at least not soon https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-supreme-court-abortion-roe-overturn-20190515-story.html

---

If the Alabama Supreme Court upholds the law, (it wasn't that long ago that the Alabama Supreme Court was nationally embarassed by the conduct of it's Chief Justice Roy Moore, twice removed) so it is likely that in Alabama the law could be found constitutional. Then if Trump's Court declines to hear the case, the Alabama law stands without Trump's Court having to overturn Roe versus Wade.

Why is Oregon taking heat on their game? Mississippi has an equally vile and almost identical law and Cal Fans aren't suggesting a boycott of the Ole Miss game. Why criticize Oregon if Cal won't even discuss the same action? Maybe Oregon fans are less conflicted?

---

Just a correction...

Roe v. Wade is federally protected as a result of a decision by the US Supreme Court. Therefore, the first step in litigation (when a state passes a law regarding this issue) is to a Federal District Court. A decision at that level can be appealed to a Federal Appellate Court. Any decision made by that court would only apply to the states within the jurisdiction of that court. Of course, any decision made by that court could be appealed to the US Supreme Court. However, if the Supremes decline to take the case, the decision made by the Appeals Court would be binding (again, only to the states within the jurisdiction of that court). The rest of the states would continue to be bound by Roe v. Wade.