USA Roe, the evangelicals and the war on choice

[CD Xbow]

Its an interesting case. On one hand I get why the parents are seeking damages due to mishandling of genetic material. I know a little bit about the IVF process. Only so many viable eggs can be collected per process and of those only so many might produce viable embryos. To the prospective parent/s who cant get pregnant any other
way the loss of such material would be emotionally devastating. Not to mention financially costly.

But on the other hand, such embryos just aren't children. They're seeds at that stage. Considering them as children with a human right to life is plain wrong.

Yes, I agree.

It's a complex case and the justices were addressing a civil case where a patient entered the cryogenic nursery where the embryos were kept, took several out of storage and dropped them on the floor, killing them. I'm not sure what happened to the perpetrator. The plaintiffs sued the clinic where the embryos were created under a 150-year-old statute that allows parents to seek punitive damages “when the death of [their] minor child is caused by the wrongful act, omission, or negligence of any person." To succeed the Plaintiffs had to have the Justices rule that the embryo's were people. And they did. Then the law on unintended consequences quicked in......

 

[carltonchelsea]

A rapist has more rights over the child birth than a woman seeking IVF treatment.
Project 25 and the evangelical Christian prosperity nutters have taken over the asylum!

 

[Father Jack]

On Thursday the Alabama legislature passed legislation to protect patients and doctors involved with in vitro fertilization in the event that embryos are damaged or destroyed. This reeks of a quick fix and doesn't address the courts ruling directly.

https://www.axios.com/2024/02/29/alabama-legislature-protects-ivf-treatment-embryo

I guess it's like how killing someone isn't murder if the state does it via the legal process.

 

[Crankyhawk]

On Thursday the Alabama legislature passed legislation to protect patients and doctors involved with in vitro fertilization in the event that embryos are damaged or destroyed. This reeks of a quick fix and doesn't address the courts ruling directly.

https://www.axios.com/2024/02/29/alabama-legislature-protects-ivf-treatment-embryo

The original court issue I believe was whether there was a right of redress for those whose embryos were destroyed by a combination of lack of security and wilful malice by another patient. In this case there is a value attached to wanted embryos and so there should be a mechanism for compensation (and to come out of the pocket of the patient and the clinic). Unfortunately to find that this case the embryo had value the court went dumb* far by stating that embryos maintain value. The value should be the value assigned by the parents and this is a dynamic value not static.

 

[ferball]

Also while a woman's body is "designed to carry life" it's still high risk being pregnant and even higher risk birthing said child and even worse for a ******* child.

Its *en disgraceful.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I guess it's like how killing someone isn't murder if the state does it via the legal process.

Or if you join the military. Travel the world! Kill brown people!

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

France has become the first nation to recognise abortion rights in its Constitution, setting the right in concrete instead of making it out of balsa wood;

France enshrines 'freedom' to abortion in Constitution, in world first

A joint session of Parliament voted to adopt a constitutional reform to protect the 'freedom of women to voluntarily terminate a pregnancy, which is guaranteed.'

www.lemonde.fr

March 4, 2024

France's Parliament approved a bill to enshrine a woman's right to an abortion in the Constitution in a historic vote on Monday, March 4, as lawmakers gathered for a joint session of Parliament at the Palace of Versailles. The bill was approved in an overwhelming 780-72 vote, and nearly the entire joint session stood in a long standing ovation.

The constitutional reform amends Article 34 of the French Constitution to specify that "the law determines the conditions by which is exercised the freedom of women to voluntarily terminate a pregnancy, which is guaranteed."

Editorial Enshrining abortion access in the French Constitution is a win for feminism and democracy

The measure was promised by President Emmanuel Macron following a rollback of abortion rights in court rulings in the United States. After the bill's adoption, Macron described the move as "French pride" that had sent a "universal message..."

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I was just now reading the editorial linked to in the article I posted above. Constitutional recognition seems to be a watered down 'right to access' rather than a straight-through right to abortion.

What this means operationally, I can't quite work out yet. As it was a point of compromise it has to be more than just semantics here though.

Enshrining abortion access in the French Constitution is a win for feminism and democracy

EDITORIAL. The move supports women's freedom to control their own bodies and is also a positive sign for the democratic system, which has managed to overcome political divisions.

www.lemonde.fr

...At every stage of the lengthy procedure initiated in November 2022, the drafting of the Constitutional reform constantly required perseverance and tact. First in the Assemblée Nationale, where, in response to the shockwave caused in June 2022 by the US Supreme Court's decision to revoke the federal right to abortion, the radical-left La France Insoumise party and the center-right presidential majority agreed to work together on a common cause.

Then the fight continued in the Sénat, where, in loyalty to Simone Veil's 1975 battle to decriminalize abortion, a number of right-wing Les Républicains elected representatives fought hard to ensure that the debate, which they had reframed, could continue against the advice of their group's president, Bruno Retailleau, and Sénat President Gérard Larcher. Finally, in the government, Justice Minister Eric Dupond-Moretti facilitated the drafting and adoption of the final text. The compromise consists of enshrining the notion of "guaranteed freedom" for women to have access to abortion, without introducing an enforceable "right" to abortion as demanded by the left.

 

[owen87]

I was just now reading the editorial linked to in the article I posted above. Constitutional recognition seems to be a watered down 'right to access' rather than a straight-through right to abortion.

What this means operationally, I can't quite work out yet. As it was a point of compromise it has to be more than just semantics here though.

Reading the article linked it seems as though actually getting one isn't so easy; limited places to get it done, limited information, limited beds.

So I suppose 'right to access' means that they don't actually have to address any of the above stuff. If it happens you end up past the date you could have the procedure then bad luck, technically no one has infringed upon the 'right to access' I suppose would be the argument? As opposed to the right to actually having one.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Reading the article linked it seems as though actually getting one isn't so easy; limited places to get it done, limited information, limited beds.

So I suppose 'right to access' means that they don't actually have to address any of the above stuff. If it happens you end up past the date you could have the procedure then bad luck, technically no one has infringed upon the 'right to access' I suppose would be the argument? As opposed to the right to actually having one.

Yeah, I'm tending to think this isn't the great reproductive rights breakthrough I initially thought it was.

 

[Maggie5]

I didn't know this!

A top Republican state lawmaker is touting what he suggests are the off-label benefits of aspirin: as a contraceptive, if used as he directs.

“Bayer Company invented aspirin. Put it between your knees,” Arizona state Senate Majority Leader Sonny Borrelli, a far-right Republican who has promoted false election fraud claims, told the Arizona Mirror, as Heartland Signal reports.

The Mirror reports Borrelli “suggested women wouldn’t need contraceptives if they weren’t so promiscuous.”

 

[Maggie5]

Listened to the SC hearing last night on the proposed banning of abortion pill.

The government lawyer was great, so well prepared and argued her case unbelievably well.

The newbie Judge Jackson I think put it better than anyone else when she stated:

The case has a “significant mismatch” Jackson said, “between the claimed injury and the remedy that’s being sought ... They’re saying, ‘Because we object to being forced to participate in this procedure, we’re seeking an order preventing anyone from having access to these drugs at all.’” Jackson said she was trying to understand “how they could possibly be entitled to that, given the injury that they have alleged.”

 

[Spearman]

Listened to the SC hearing last night on the proposed banning of abortion pill.

The government lawyer was great, so well prepared and argued her case unbelievably well.

The newbie Judge Jackson I think put it better than anyone else when she stated:

The case has a “significant mismatch” Jackson said, “between the claimed injury and the remedy that’s being sought ... They’re saying, ‘Because we object to being forced to participate in this procedure, we’re seeking an order preventing anyone from having access to these drugs at all.’” Jackson said she was trying to understand “how they could possibly be entitled to that, given the injury that they have alleged.”

with beer and pies?

seriously well done you, I wouldn't last a minute through that stuff.