Highlights from Georgia Judge overturning their abortion ban
Originally posted to X by @MuellerSheWrote, I've pulled their post copy here:
NEW: THREAD: A new ruling from Judge McBurney in Georgia overturning the abortion ban and allowing the procedure to continue has some REMARKABLE quotes. Let's take a look at just a few. 1/
"While the State's interest in protecting "unborn" life is compelling, until that life can be sustained by the State -- and not solely by the woman compelled by the Act to do the State's work -- the balance of rights favors the woman." 2/
"Women are not some piece of collectively owned community property the disposition of which is decided by majority vote. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted, not-yet-viable fetus to term violates her constitutional rights to liberty and privacy, even taking into consideration whatever bundle of rights the not-yet-viable fetus may have." 3/
"For these women, the liberty of privacy means that they alone should choose whether they serve as human incubators for the five months leading up to viability. It is not for a legislator, a judge, or a Commander from The Handmaid's Tale to tell these women what to do with their bodies during this period when the fetus cannot survive outside the womb any more so than society could -- or should -- force them to serve as a human tissue bank or to give up a kidney for the benefit of another." 4/
"When someone other than the pregnant woman is able to sustain the fetus, then -- and only then -- should those other voices have a say in the discussion about the decisions the pregnant woman makes concerning her body and what is growing within it." 5/
"There is nothing so urgent or important to the State about the medical records of women who end pregnancies that the privacy rights of those women -- and the Fourth Amendment protections that attach to those rights -- can be bulldozed away by statutory enactment." 6/
"...liberty in Georgia includes in its meaning, in its protections, and in its bundle of rights the power of a woman to control her own body, to decide what happens to it and in it, and to reject state interference with her healthcare choices." 7/
"Accordingly, Section 4 of the LIFE Act is hereby DECLARED unconstitutional. The State and all its agents, to include any County, Municipal, or other local authority, are once again ENJOINED from seeking to enforce in any manner the LIFE Act's PECAP termination ban in Georgia." END/
|
Idaho women traveling to Washington for abortions, not not having them
Now that a year has passed since women lost the right to abortion, we can assess how our neighbor Idaho's near-total ban on it is faring.
In short: It has accomplished next to nothing.
You can't say categorically that the Idaho ban hasn't stopped a single abortion. But the data suggests that is essentially the case – that the whole thing is a burden, cost and danger to Idaho's own women, but hasn't met the anti-abortion goals that supposedly informed it.
We know this now because clinics in the Pacific Northwest have started releasing data on where women come from to use their services, both back when abortion was legal nationwide, and now that it's not.
Idaho women are simply fleeing.
Take the Kennewick Planned Parenthood clinic in the Tri-Cities, about 130 miles into Washington state from the Idaho border. According to data compiled by U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell's office, this clinic saw just two patients from Idaho in the five months before the U.S. Supreme Court canceled Roe v. Wade.
In that same five-month period this year? There were 91.
|
Supreme Court allows abortion medication to remain on market
Additional reading:
- The Supreme Court Protects Access to the Abortion Pill Mifepristone—At Least for Now (motherjones.com)
- The Supreme Court Preserves Abortion Pill Access—Temporarily (wired.com)
- Supreme Court pauses abortion pill restrictions from taking effect during appeal (thehill.com)
- The Supreme Court rules mifepristone can remain available – here's how 2 conflicting federal court decisions led to this point (theconversation.com)
- The Justices Pass on an Abortion-Pill Ban (theatlantic.com)
|
Sen. Lindsey Graham introduces bill to ban abortion nationally
This is a fascinating bit of political and theater between the Republicans and Democrats. My guess is that this is a desperation play where they are hoping to scare Republicans who might vote Democratic back to the right. But I can't imagine that this is actually a winning strategy for them.
|
"Results: Kansas voters decide 'no' on the abortion amendment"
I included the tweet when it was called yesterday, but here is a write up which delves into it deeper. And given that Kansas, a conservative state, voted this way is telling.
Edit: Originally I linked to an NPR story about this news. Switching to promote 19thnews.org, "an independent, nonprofit newsroom reporting on gender, politics and policy."
|
Digital Defense Fund
We are Digital Defense Fund, and we do digital security for the abortion access movement.
We envision a future where technology and innovation support secure, autonomous reproductive decisions, free from stigma.
|
Re: President Biden's statement about life saving abortion treatment
After seeing a Twitter war over it, I went digging. And indeed, I checked nearly every state's filed law that bans abortion, and none of the ones I checked prevented abortions in the case of saving the mother's life.
I do not bring this fact check as a way to get people to settle down. Pro Choice is firmly the stance which is right.
The laws that I reviewed were all written with exceptions for life saving abortions. By my reading though, most of the ones I skimmed were written in such a way that the doctor could then find themselves under the microscope to determine if they're judgment that it was a life threatening situation was correct. This looming threat might could make doctors less likely to make that call, and speaks to why the President's statement today is still impactful even though the laws all already permit it, and makes clear that the federal law still supercedes their state laws in those cases.
|
My grandmother’s botched abortion transformed three generations
Actor John Turturro tells how a botched abortion for his grandmother transformed his family.
|
With Roe overturned, Congress must act on data privacy
It’s incumbent on lawmakers to prevent state governments from circumventing people’s Fourth Amendment rights and to protect consumers from being harassed by antiabortion activists.
Found via a tweet from Elizabeth Warren. The article is authored by the Boston Globe's Editorial Board.
|
Rep. Pramila Jayapal floats National Women's Strike in response to Supreme Court Abortion Decision
|
Democrats, Roe, and Voting
Last week was rough. When the Roe v. Wade decision came out, being embedded in social media, was rough. And then comes the messaging from Democrats of "Well, just vote" - and, yes they aren't wrong. But it's an incredibly frustrating message for voters.
I feel it's sort of like the people who get angry when people in entertainment, sports, or gaming (and other fields) bring up politics and they go "Leave politics out of this." But. We can't. This is life. Politics is part of life.
This isn't an achievement to be had once and then forgotten. It's an ongoing effort and it requires folks to continue to give a shit. Roe v. Wade being overturned is a big moment and going to make people care and pay attention again.
Will it be enough to bring in two more Democratic senators? Who knows. But that's the point of this messaging. There isn't much which can be done until something changes. And to change it, people have to be invested in the country's politics and vote.
|
Reddit poster dispels explains the Supreme Court and what the Democrats would have to do to stop the Roe v Wade being overturned
Found courtesy of my friend Bill:
So I’ve seen a number of comments blaming Democrats for this that say it’s their fault that Roe v Wade wasn’t “codified into law.” This shows a misunderstanding of how the US legal system works, so here’s a quick primer.
Role of the Supreme Court
At the very inception of the USA the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to be the interpreter of the US Constitution and the arbiter of whether laws passed within the US abide by the Constitution in the Marbury v Madison ruling. This has been an accepted role of the Court ever since, and falls within the notion of checks and balances. The Court acts as a check on Congress and the states to ensure that all laws passed follow the Constitution. For example, if Congress passed a law saying that no one could say bad things about the president, the Court would rule that this is not a law because it violates the 1st Amendment. Or if Congress passed a law saying that there are no more elections, they get to stay in Congress for life, the Supreme Court would overrule that law by saying “no the Constitution says elections every 2 years.” These Supreme Court rulings have the force of law.
So then can’t the Supreme Court just say whatever they want?
Well not quite but sort of. Supreme Court has a policy called stare decisis which means that they generally should respect previous decisions that have been made. Technically it’s up to them though. Theoretically another check on the power of the Supreme Court is that the President appoints them, so the people have a say in the Supreme Court based on who they elect as president. Finally, another way that the people can overrule the Court is by passing Constitutional Amendments — actually changing the most important document in the USA. However this is incredibly hard. Not only do 2/3 of BOTH houses of Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) have to agree but then 3/4 of the State Legislatures have to pass it as well.
So how does this apply to Roe and abortion?
So Roe v Wade was a Supreme Court decision that interpreted the Constitution as saying that women have the right to an abortion within certain limits. Remember, this has the force of law, and that only the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution. If Republicans in Mississippi passed a law saying “there’s no right to abortion” the Supreme Court would say “nope we decided that and stare decisis says we stick with that decision”. And this happened time and time again. The restrictions changed somewhat but basically they continued to agree with their previous ruling. Except that’s not what happened THIS TIME. This time the Court said “you know we were wrong back then, changed our minds.”
But what about Democrats in Congress?
So like I said before, if Democrats passed a law last week saying “women have a right to an abortion”, then the Supreme Court could still say “nope that’s not in the Constitution.” If Democrats pass one tomorrow, the Court could still say the same thing. The only way to change it without the Court is to pass a Constitutional Amendment, which is impossible in today’s America. This is why republicans have been laser focused on the Supreme Court. Hope this has been helpful!
EDIT: This is not to say that passing a law protecting abortion today would be not allowed — that’s not what Dobbs says — but highlighting the fact that no matter what law is passed (except a Constitutional amendment) the Supreme Court could (and based on today’s ruling would) overrule it.
|
Justice Clarence Thomas Just Said the Quiet Part Out Loud
On Friday morning, Alito’s conservative colleague on the court, Justice Clarence Thomas, disagreed with that. In his own individual opinion, Thomas wrote that, in fact, overturning Roe should only be the first step. “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” he writes. “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous.’”
“Demonstrably erroneous.” There is very little that is vague about those words. With the death of abortion rights in America, Thomas has now come out and said, in no-uncertain terms, that cases that enshrined Americans’ rights to marry whomever they want and to make personal decisions about their intimacy and child-bearing are flat-out wrong. For now, that is just Thomas’ opinion—none of what he’s written is legally enforceable. But the fact that he’s stating this explicitly affirms the fears of advocates that for many conservatives the demise of Roe was never meant to be the end—but rather a bleak beginning.
|
Donations to fund Abortion Access in Every State
Another option is to donate to the Center for Reproductive Rights, which as of this posting, is having donations matched 10-1.
|
