With Roe overturned, period-tracking apps raise new worries
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
* There is something wrong with the child, due to which any semblance happy and fulfilled life will never be possible
* The child is a product of an unwanted and traumatic sexual contact
* The mother knows she can't support the child and will end up raising it on the street - until she can't any more
The pro-life crowd should actively work to ensure every mother has maternity leave and comprehensive support services, including healthcare, for both mother and child. Otherwise, they risk being called on their hypocrisy.
Secondly, there is an uncountable number of reasons to have an abortion rather than carrying to term. I don’t know which reasons will meet your personal bar of acceptable, but we are talking about rape victims, children, mothers who cannot afford time off because there is minimal maternity leave and they need to provide for their already born kids, professionals who are building their careers, trans men with gender dysphoria, ectopic pregnancy, high-risk pregnancy, cannot afford to stop psychological medication that hasn’t been approved for pregnancy…
> Well firstly, let’s stop spreading misinformation that abortion is inherently risky.
I wasn't, other people are saying that this is what it would lead to , more women choosing these "risky" abortions.
> ectopic pregnancy, high-risk pregnancy, cannot afford to stop psychological medication that hasn’t been approved for pregnancy…
These are all self defense cases in my opinion and so I do not consider it immoral.
> rape victims
I understand this as something that would put the life of the mother at risk because of the trauma involved. So not immoral.
> children, mothers who cannot afford time off because there is minimal maternity leave and they need to provide for their already born kids,
Well this is a problem with society then, yes? Does your suffering give you the right to kill another being (Since we still have not determined when life begins you have to admit this is a possibility.)
> professionals who are building their careers
I feel this is unacceptable. People make decisions that affect their career everyday. Having sex is one of them.
When do you think life begins? I really do not know.
So how late in a pregnancy can someone determine that a fetus is going to interfere with their career?
> trans men with gender dysphoria
Just going to stay away from this one becasue I do not know enough about it.
Frankly, I don’t think any of us get to pick and choose acceptable and unacceptable reasons to have a procedure on a body that isn’t one’s own. The problem with framing abortion as if the fetus is generally viable is that, generally, it isn’t viable. It’s actually normalized not to announce pregnancy until over 3 months in because spontaneous abortions are just that common. There’s no guarantee that any given pregnancy won’t result in an abortion anyways, and gatekeeping abortion will disproportionately harm everyone involved due to the intense trauma of having the choices of one’s body taken away from them for most of a year through no activity that is illegal or worthy of punishment.
I think you have this backwards. Since we haven't defined when life begins and we know the person carrying the fetus is alive we must choose the rights and well-being of the living over the unknown. Otherwise we open ourselves up to allowing legislators to assert that this or that cell might be alive and therefore requires equal protection under the law.
They have defined when life begins which is why they have cut offs for abortion, like not after 3 months. Also this man was charged with killing an 10 week old fetus.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article340575.html
You cannot murder something if we have ruled it does not have a right to life.
> Otherwise we open ourselves up to allowing legislators to assert that this or that cell might be alive and therefore requires equal protection under the law.
Not at all. The most we could go back is to say that human life begins at fertilization. The other option is when the baby leaves the birth canal. To me those are the only options that makes sense. The three month rule is idiotic.
If she got pregnant out of wedlock, it's vastly worse.
You see what I mean?
If having a baby makes your life so harsh that your own survival is threatened, it's rather hard to take the high road and try to "fix society" so you can avoid an abortion.
Give me a break. This is not why the majority of women choose to have abortions and it is way over the top of na exaggeration. I know five women who had abortions. It was career for three, already had four kids for one who is wealthy, and the last did not like the guy she had the kid with but still dated him after.
> it's rather hard to take the high road and try to "fix society" so you can avoid an abortion.
But we have not addressed this the WHOLE TIME abortion was legal, and look where we are now. If we start dismantling capitalism we might be able to address why it costs so much to have a baby and why there is such an extreme divergence in wealth that makes it hard for so many people.
I have no idea why you seem so angry at me for noting that this is so for some people and those individuals usually are not in a good position to "fix society" much less both have a baby and also fix society.
We'd need to fix American society first, but then a lot of people will irrationally scream "socialism" and work against their own interests.
And then they don't really care whether you chose or not to have that baby.
$5,000-$10,000 in medical bills to birth them. Another $200,000-$500,000 to get them to 18.
It's imaginable some might want to avoid having a child for the cost savings alone.
I could say that it can feel like a life-ending situation to become pregnant but you might not really get it without some emotional connection, hence the movie references.
Alternatively, you could imagine a situation where you'd want to punch someone in the face for saying "why don't you just live with it?" and substitute that for how some women feel when they're unexpectedly pregnant.
Certainly with legal and safe abortion, many more abortions are performed than would have been in the previous regime. But just like some people will risk their career or commit suicide rather than accept a life changing event, women were willing to risk it all to avoid becoming a mother at that point in their life.
Giving birth to that child: stay pregnant for a few more months, go through labor, and ACTUALLY raise that child by buying the food, paying for and sending them to school, paying for a lot of other stuff, and spending time with them for TWO DECADES which you may not be mentally or financially prepared for
Why is this even a question? You think a mother gives birth to a child and it's done business, like abortion?
And if so, who determines when the cut off is? If the fetus is still attached to the mother after it leaves the birth canal, I still consider it her body, so is i still her choice?
So we agree where the cutoff is. As in, we discuss in congress and find some point we can agree on. Perhaps using European democracies as a guide, where things range from up to 12 weeks after conception to 6 months after conception.
We could perhaps work "from first principles". Obviously abortion needs to happen after a woman knows she's pregnant. So, you should allow at least 1-2 female periods' worth (1 period = 4 weeks) + some time to schedule the procedure, which comes to that same minimum of about 12 weeks.
An exception is medically necessary abortion, which is even legal (and a fact of life) after the baby leaves the birth canal (a baby without lungs will stay alive as long as the umbilical cord is intact, for example. When you cut it, and you have to cut it, baby dies. Not much can be done. And this is not the worst example by far. Though it's natural, so you might say "Approved by God", by republican logic).
I must say this is one thing I don't understand about the religious position. Several abortion procedures are built into our genes (one relating to the immune system, one relating to the heart, one relating to the brain, and I doubt we've discovered all of them).
Either those systems work to a minimum standard, or your own cells (or the mother's cells) will abort you. So there are very practical reasons that "God" does abortions. The theory is that these systems exist, because it vastly lowers the time it takes to produce another child, increasing the rate at which your DNA spreads. This also exists in animals (most famously male lions' post-natal abortions when they take over a troup).
Canada has proven that is not true. In Canada, it is entirely between the woman and her doctor, right up until birth. If she could find a doctor to do it (spoiler alert: she won’t) she could abort minutes before contractions begin.
And this is the way it should be. Doctors and the hospitals behind them don’t perform late term abortions unless they are medically necessary.
In Canada there are no laws, no legal limits, and there is no problem. Funny how that works, eh? It’s almost as if we can trust doctors and women.
When discussing value of life people usually pick their preferred side. Do homeless people have a value on life? America treats homeless as garbage. What about disabled people?
People do this all over the world.
> Strangers are not going to help raise the child, like back in tribe ages where there so many children that everyone in the tribe had a part.
and
> The social benefits from government when you have a child are abysmal even in the "good" states in America.
So why are we not addressing these things? But actually, that is what adoption is all about. True? Stranger raisin your baby?
> When discussing value of life people usually pick their preferred side.
I don't. I do not discuss their value monetarily at all. That is incomprehensible. By the way, I am homeless, and yes, I see both Democrats and Republicans treat me like garbage. They both do not care about life at any point.
Again, look at this. No one wants to elect people to fix these problems, we just keep on voting in these corporate capitalism politicians and then they tell you to just have an abortion because you cannot afford the high cost of everything and the low wages.
I am not anti-abortion, I just want a society where they are not needed becasue money.
Personally I think leaving it up to the states means that these groups will vote for it to be legal in their jurisdictions, so everyone (the left, the right, the moderates) ends up happy.
But let's assume it's the case. I don't htink we'll see a noticeable spike of crime in the future because of this, for several reasons:
1. Contraception is more readily available, particularly in terms of affordability, than it was 50+ years ago. I mean the Court may well make that illegal too but we'll burn that bridge when we get to it;
2. Medical advancements, specifically various abortion pills, some of which are incredibly effective and safe. These didn't exist before Roe v. Wade. States may well try to ban their distribution but this is clearly interstate commerce, which is explicitly stated in the Constitution as a Federal power, so even this Court will have trouble coming up with a post-hoc rationalization to ban it (I hope);
3. The Federal government can (currently at least and of course subject to review) codify access to abortion at a Federal level. The Freedom of Choice Act was something Obama campaigned on that he would sign on his first day in office yet immediately decided it wasn't a priority after taking office. He had a supermajority in the Senate then and wasted it. The Democrats have had many opportunities to override a filibuster. We shouldn't forget that. The current Senate could do this by simply eliminating the filibuster if they chose to. I guarantee you the first Republican Senate will do this immediately when it serves their needs;
4. The Federal government has the nuclear option available of being able to provide access to abortions if they so chose. Where? On Federal land (including military bases). Hell, you may even be able to do this on Native lands.
The concern here isn't just overturning Roe and Casey. Obviously that's dire but the real issue is what this portends. The impact of this Evangelical Taliban court didn't end on Friday. It's only just beginning.
States restrict commerce in all kinds of goods and already have different laws about medications in practice.
The question is likely-- to what extent is that authority preempted by FDA regulation?
I present to you Wickard v. Filburn [1]. A farmer (Filburn) was growing wheat on his own property to use as animal feed. Said wheat wasn't being sold or transported across state lines.
> The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause.
I personally think this decision is overreach because it technically means almost anything falls under the Commerce Clause but hey, that's the settled law of the land (until it isn't like Roe and Casey).
This established that a farmer growing wheat on his own property for use on his property was subject to federal regulation of commerce... not that his own state could not also regulate things about wheat sold in the state.
There are powers reserved exclusively to the federal government; there are powers reserved exclusively to the states. And there are things in-between, where we have laws from both. States choose all kinds of goods that are sold in interstate commerce to be legal or not legal.
The big question here is, the Fed gov't has a large regulatory and oversight operation for drugs. Does it completely preempt state action? For e.g. securities, we have both Federal SEC and state "blue sky" laws. For drugs, we've not really had a great test case to find out.
I am pro-choice but I think what the court did was right because now it forces politicians to make tough decisions. I only hope that the people realize that because of the Roe decision, it's back to the policymakers to pass law, not for the court to create it.
That's an important point, I wonder if there should be an amendment to the constitution stating that "just because we didn't mention a right, doesn't mean you don't have it". It seems important, maybe we should give it a low amendment number. I'd say top 10 at least, are there any numbers not being used?
Hmm, 9 seems to be free I guess?
Let me guess, you’re male and don’t have any women in your life who would have their life threatened by this ruling. If not, how do you explain to them you support this decision which jeopardizes their lives and relegates them to second-class citizenship?
What was convenient before might be evidence tomorrow.
The problem has nothing to do with Roe, it has to do with how we've allowed all of these technologies to violate our privacy on the off chance the information would never be abused, which is insane. Information is power, of course it will be abused by bad actors every single time.
It used to be (and sometimes still is) that people would travel to GB from Ireland to receive abortions, but obviously a different legal system applies when it’s countries rather than states.
Grasping at straws.
It's just a concurrence, but it seems to indicate that at least one conservative justice feels that states cannot criminalize that. For now.
(+) https://www.euronews.com/2022/06/06/poland-s-government-crit...
F-droid.org is the obvious place to look for offline-by-default android alternatives.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220625115017/https://www.washi...
This makes me think of the story of Target[1] knowing when people were pregnant. I think there are a lot of other companies that it will come out are figuring out who is pregnant that will demonstrate the depth of surveillance of the surveillance economy.
[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-targ...
I do think it is very important to specify because this is being presented as a false choice where the most important thing to do is to stop inputting data to your data into a period tracker app instead of the vast collection of all of your other data eg search and purchases. It is a false dichotomy where one of the few times people are consensually creating data is focused on instead of the vast amount of other data that most people would consider egregious to collect/collate.
Is not the same as a data broker selling data a user has self-reported about their ovulation.
The most straightforward way to do so is to monetize the data.
As such, it might find its way to law enforcement.
The prosecutors in those states are no-doubt smacking their lips at the idea of using such data to find supporting evidence that a woman had a secret abortion.
Make no mistake, this is a power grab by egotistical religious nuts. They're not going to stop here.
It’s important to not spread fake FUD during these times.
I'm not a fan of elective abortions, but anything that could potentially put a roadblock in the way of a medically necessary abortion needs to be scrutinized very carefully.
Women will die because of this decision at the end of the day. When that happens, the SCOTUS majority will have blood on their hands.
Four justices are on record as having said they respected Roe v Wade as "settled law", and here they have shown that to be a lie. Why do we just allow these people to lie and get away with it? Any elected or appointed official who lies as part of their duties should be removed from office and blackballed from ever holding such office for the rest of their life.
As well, Justice Thomas indicated that other privacy-based precedent should also be revisited. The Court seems to be trying to undo the whole concept of stare decisis.
Native American Brittney Poolaw was sentenced to 4 years in prison by Oklahoma in Nov 2021 for a miscarriage in a hospital.
The court said her meth use constituted manslaughter, not drug addiction.
If the mother smokes cigarettes, drinks alcohol, etc and a lawyer can show a reasonable expectation that this can harm a fetus and the mother can be reasonably expected to understand this risk and know doing so could harm her fetus, she could now be prosecuted for manslaughter in those states.
The saddest part is that many states didn't wait for this decision to prosecute those who miscarry:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/07/misc-j06.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544
https://www.popsugar.com/news/can-you-be-charged-with-crime-...
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/11/8/20954980/stillbirth...
https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a44552/when-a-m...
This sounds illegal, have a link?
This step back and this presumed overvalueing of life what is a mere cell cluster vs being totally fine what is done to fully feeling empathic living beings every day is what boggles and saddens me a lot in our modern society (no not forbidding you to eat meat, just let them life a natural, or at least under some viewpoint a certain kind if happy and non-tortured life).
Which states?
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/24/texas-abortion-law-s...
https://www.findlaw.com/state/texas-law/texas-abortion-laws....
Although re-reading the text, it's not clear whether that applies to the abortion provider or recipient.
1. To those who think this simply returns the issue to the states so it's not a big deal, take a piece of paper and write that down with the date on it and put it in a drawer. You can take it out when the GOP controls the White House, the House and the Senate and Federally bans abortion because there's no constitutional protection for it.
2. State laws are incredibly overreaching. Kavanaugh felt it necessary to explicitly call out that states can't ban interstate travel. Why? Because states are clearly trying to do that. And the Court may well change their mind on that later too. I mean they already did after saying under oath that Roe v. Wade and Case were super-precedents and settled law;
3. With psuedo-personhood for a fetus established expect women to be charged with endangering that fetus. This rlready happens. For example: an Alabama woman charged with manslaughter after getting shot and losing her unborn baby [1];
4. Menstrual-trackng apps produce data that can be used in two ways. First, it could be subpoenaed by law enforcement to show that a woman was pregnant and may have had an abortion. Second, this data is sold to third-parties. The government already buys this data, which is currently a legal end-run around getting warrants. If you think that some state government won't do this too, you're out of your mind.
Part of why people are legitimately worried is that this Court is completely psychotic. In the last 2 weeks we've had the Court decide:
- A safe medical procedure is not consitutionally protected (and thus can be outlawed by states) because the word "abortion" isn't explicitly in the Constitution so it's supposedly a states rights issue;
- The State of New York can't deny a concealed carry permit under its previous regime of demonstrating need;
- The Border Tactical Force ("Bortac") can operate in a Constitution-free zone, including limiting Fourth Amendment protections, within 100 miles of any border, which means any coast, any border or any airport. This Constitution-free zone in fact covers two-thirds of the US population.
The very idea of an originalist interpretation of the Constitution is a modern invention from the Nixon era to justify stripped people of their rights. The court is and always has been political. And now the Court is stacked with the politics of the Evangelical Taliban.
Actually, that's not fair. Every Islamic country, including Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, has more access to abortion that half the US states now do or soon will.
2. States couldn’t ban interstate travel before. They can’t now. Why is a non-issue even being discussed? More FUD.
3. Is misleading at best. The primary charge was against the shooter. They said the mother MAY face similar charges as she initiated the argument and stayed in the situation by choice.
4. Perhaps we need laws to disallow police using personal data? At any rate an easy way around this is to use a calendar. Or keep it in your head like my wife and I do.
Spreading FUD will not help.
They are not interfering with private life. They are in fact removing a falsely enumerated “right” and returning the decision to the states. States can easily say abortion is legal based on their voters thoughts and opinions. If the voters don’t want abortion legal in their state then why should those outside the state have say? Isn’t this democracy?
Hopefully you understand that the reason why we have a constitutional democracy is to protect minority interests.
If voters in a state don't want interracial marriage to be legal, should people outside the state have a say? It's only been since 1990 or so that a majority of people in most states supported interracial marriage.
"As practiced, to have minority rule" FTFY.
So what about the minority interests of gay people? Trans people? Enslaved people? Let's not forget that "states' rights" as an argument was famously used to justify chattel slavery.
Those pushing "states' rights" aren't the least bit interested in protecting minority interests. They're only interested in protecting their own interests. Period. It's "states' rights" when it serves them and a Federal issue when it serves them.
> If voters in a state don't want interracial marriage to be legal, should people outside the state have a say?
Yes. if you even have to ask...
I'm actually arguing against someone who made that argument.
> > If voters in a state don't want interracial marriage to be legal, should people outside the state have a say?
> Yes. if you even have to ask...
That's called a rhetorical question. Person I replied to said that majority of people in a state should determine if abortion is legal. I say that the purpose of the judiciary and a well-crafted representative democracy doesn't just allow the majority of the people of a state to run roughshod over an unpopular minority-- whether that minority wants to be trans, have interracial marriage, or get an abortion.
How does this logic of minority rule hold up against things like the 2nd amendment?
As said to you before: "In practice, very few people truly believe in a consistent ideology either way about states' rights. You'll find Democrats that believe things should be left to the states when it benefits them and when Republicans are in power. And you'll find Republicans eager to expand federal spending and powers when they occupy the institutions of power."
The difference between 2A and Roe is that the 2A is VERY CLEARLY enumerated by the constitution whereas Roe is not.
So I push this back to you, why is a VERY CLEARLY ENUMERATED right ignored by the left but this Roe thing isn’t?
Seems like a double standard.
Before the 14th amendment, none of them did. Many states denied jury trials, etc.
Now, it's piecemeal based on the incorporation doctrine.
Again a piece of inconsistency: the right love the idea that the incorporation doctrine might restrict the states on firearms laws. But they don't love that the incorporation doctrine might prevent the states from passing the kinds of rights-squashing laws that they favor.
So now explain why the left can ignore that amendment, but then pull something it clearly doesn’t say from another?
Getting back on track, you’ll notice what the right is doing is about protecting life. Access to guns is self defense, and now fetal rights for the unborn. The left is about ending life, with Dr assisted suicides, wanting to restrict or remove firearms, and now ending it before it even opens it eyes. Now the left is making a huge deal about not being able to push their life ending ideals on all of us and running around like the world is ending. I reiterate, this is crazy.
Also I’m and independent.
We were talking about states rights vs. federal policy. Now you're trying to pivot about arguing about protecting life, ignoring all the discussion of consistency in positions about states' rights vs federalism.
So, I'm not too likely to respond to you anymore. You can't stay on topic. It's called the "Gish Gallop".
Damn, I had to check like 4 sources to make sure that was real.
Why is the US like this? What a shit show.
To renounce your state citizenship (there is no such thing really, it’s called residence) you move and take an address in another state. After some time, usually 6 months, you now legally live in the new state.