How's this going to work?

[vraiblonde]

It sure does seem that as quick as they are to go to racism and sexism as a culprit that it is really THEM that have racism on their minds.

Funny, that. HuffPo twisted this issue into a win for white supremacy, the premise being (stay with me here) that white women are now forced to gve birth, which will increase the number of white people in this country to counteract the "darkening" of America due to blacks and Hispanics.



It has since been pointed out to them that non-whites, as a percentage of their population, are the biggest consumers of abortion services in this country. So they didn't really think it through before they decided to toss that narrative out there and see who throws themselves on the floor in outrage.

 

[SamSpade]

Funny, that. HuffPo twisted this issue into a win for white supremacy, the premise being (stay with me here) that white women are now forced to gve birth, which will increase the number of white people in this country to counteract the "darkening" of America due to blacks and Hispanics.



It has since been pointed out to them that non-whites, as a percentage of their population, are the biggest consumers of abortion services in this country. So they didn't really think it through before they decided to toss that narrative out there and see who throws themselves on the floor in outrage.

(shrug)

This is like global warming - if your argument doesn't work, they'll claim the opposite - that just as PP founder Sanger wanted, the eventual extermination of non-whites.

 

[BernieP]

It’s unquestionably unconstitutional under Roe and Casey. 11th circuit will strike it, and won’t even be granted cert by SCOTUS.

ROLL TIDE!

Roe has been challenged many times because of the rather vague limit of the first trimester. At the time of the ruling the court had now accurate way of defining viability and life, it was basically a judgement call. Since that time medical science has progressed and the felling is that there can be a solid case for addressing what Roe and Casey did not.

It placed the point after which a state’s compelling interest in the pregnant woman’s health would allow it to regulate abortion “at approximately the end of the first trimester” of pregnancy. With regard to the fetus, the court located that point at “capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb,” or viability.

Repeated challenges since 1973 narrowed the scope of Roe v. Wade but did not overturn it. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court established that restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional if they place an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus is viable. In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), the court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (2003), which prohibited a rarely used abortion procedure known as intact dilation and evacuation. In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), the court invoked its decision in Casey to strike down two provisions of a Texas law that had required abortion clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centres and abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

Casey, named for the former Democratic Governor of PA, Bill Casey, in large part upheld the law he signed. PP challenged that law again, based on the ruling. Notice it says, "restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional if they place an “undue burden” on a woman " but failed to define accurately "viable".

That's why these states have created this challenge. It's not an attempt to over turn the previous rulings, but rather to fix the portions that remain vague. Defining 'undo burden" and viable.

 

[This_person]

Roe has been challenged many times because of the rather vague limit of the first trimester. At the time of the ruling the court had now accurate way of defining viability and life, it was basically a judgement call. Since that time medical science has progressed and the felling is that there can be a solid case for addressing what Roe and Casey did not.


Casey, named for the former Democratic Governor of PA, Bill Casey, in large part upheld the law he signed. PP challenged that law again, based on the ruling. Notice it says, "restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional if they place an “undue burden” on a woman " but failed to define accurately "viable".

That's why these states have created this challenge. It's not an attempt to over turn the previous rulings, but rather to fix the portions that remain vague. Defining 'undo burden" and viable.

Wouldn't it be great if the courts viewed "viable" as "likely to be born alive if we don't kill it"?

 

[Bird Dog]

im sorry if that was over your head. I will break it down for you. Most large corporatrions have funding that comes in for various projects. they also have a means of tracking how that money is spent and making sure it doesn't get used for the wrong thing. its pretty ****ing simple

You don't have to break anything down for me.....genius