Alabama abortion ban: Republican state senate passes most restrictive law in US

[DGuller]

All the stuff I said would minimize abortions and was called a radical feminist for. Because common sense is not for women, you know. We must be radical to want to be consider more human that a clump of cells.

You're making it sound like pregnancy is a choice between the death of the fetus and the death of the mother.

[The Minsky Moment]

I actually reject what I see as Meri's argument (which was Roe's argument I think, that the SC rejected as well) that a womans right to an abortion was absolute. I do think that there is in fact a balance to be struck between the individual rights of the mother, and societies interest in the prenatal health of this human being. And I think the argument that there is no possible way to have the view that abortion should be regulated in good faith, ie, based on concern for the health of this fetus rather than a desire to control women, is simply crazy. I am very content and comfortable saying that I think abortion can be  progressively more restricted as the pregnancy progresses, AND that we can and should do a much, much better job providing better heath care and health services to children and potential parents.

What you are referring to as the Roe compromise is the very thing that is under attack.  Of course it's possible to regulate abortion in good faith, most of the country has been doing it for 40 years.  But this whole thread is about a concerted effort to undo that.

[Berkut]

I actually reject what I see as Meri's argument (which was Roe's argument I think, that the SC rejected as well) that a womans right to an abortion was absolute. I do think that there is in fact a balance to be struck between the individual rights of the mother, and societies interest in the prenatal health of this human being. And I think the argument that there is no possible way to have the view that abortion should be regulated in good faith, ie, based on concern for the health of this fetus rather than a desire to control women, is simply crazy. I am very content and comfortable saying that I think abortion can be  progressively more restricted as the pregnancy progresses, AND that we can and should do a much, much better job providing better heath care and health services to children and potential parents.

What you are referring to as the Roe compromise is the very thing that is under attack.  Of course it's possible to regulate abortion in good faith, most of the country has been doing it for 40 years.  But this whole thread is about a concerted effort to undo that.

I think the thread is about whatever we wish it to be, and my response was driven not by the original topic, which is pretty boring (is there anyone in the entire thread who is actually in favor of this moronic law?).

[garbon]

I don't think I posted it in hopes of finding someone who supported the law.

[The Minsky Moment]

What is significant about the law is that it reflects a radicalization of tactics in recognition of a changed political environment.  Issue based campaigners no longer see the need to tailor messages to try to secure majoritarian support. This is a play to inflame and provoke tribal instincts just as the complex immigration issue has been reduced to dangerous and emotive  claims about "invasions" and demands for medieval walls, with the consequence that a fake non-crisis on the border has been transformed into a very real moral crisis on the border. 

Our politics is being seized by zealots, because others who should know better are willing to encourage it in the hope of pushing Overton windows.  As a political tactic it is failing to achieve the objective as American opinions aren't really shifting from their central points, but the one Overton window that may be moving is the acceptability of displays of politically motivated violence and threats of violence.

[Eddie Teach]

I don't think it's a change in tactics. They just realized there's now a possibility the SC might reverse Roe so they're testing it. The reason these bills weren't passed before was they'd just be a waste of time.

[merithyn]

Defining human is a bit more tricky.  There are people who are alive who exhibit very little brain activity, though we don't consider them legally dead.

And yet, it's not murder for a hospital or family member to "pull the plug" on someone with no brain activity.

[merithyn]

All the stuff I said would minimize abortions and was called a radical feminist for. Because common sense is not for women, you know. We must be radical to want to be consider more human that a clump of cells.

You're making it sound like pregnancy is a choice between the death of the fetus and the death of the mother.

Every pregnancy has inherent risks. Not every pregnancy realizes those risks. It doesn't change the fact that the risks are there.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't think it's a change in tactics. They just realized there's now a possibility the SC might reverse Roe so they're testing it. The reason these bills weren't passed before was they'd just be a waste of time.

That's not how interest groups move constitutional change.  You always want to bring test cases that build incrementally and present the matter in the best light.

[Razgovory]

I don't think it's a change in tactics. They just realized there's now a possibility the SC might reverse Roe so they're testing it. The reason these bills weren't passed before was they'd just be a waste of time.

States pass laws to challenge Roe all the time.  Legislatures do this to signal their pro-life stance to their constituents.  They aren't accomplishing anything legally, but I doubt they feel they are wasting time.

This... is different.

[crazy canuck]

Heard a funny quip - Alabama, where nobody chooses to give birth.

[Barrister]

I don't think it's a change in tactics. They just realized there's now a possibility the SC might reverse Roe so they're testing it. The reason these bills weren't passed before was they'd just be a waste of time.

That's not how interest groups move constitutional change.  You always want to bring test cases that build incrementally and present the matter in the best light.

Which is why a lot of pro-life special interest groups are not supporting the Alabama and Georgia bills.

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/27/alabama-pregnant-woman-shot-manslaughter-charge-marshae-jones

Alabama: pregnant woman shot in stomach is charged in fetus's death

Marshae Jones was charged with manslaughter, while the woman accused of shooting her walks free, report says

A woman from Alabama who was shot in the stomach while pregnant – with the bullets killing the fetus – has been charged with manslaughter.

Marshae Jones was reportedly five months pregnant when she was shot by another woman in December outside a shop in Pleasant Grove, near Birmingham.

On Wednesday, Jones, 27, was indicted by a Jefferson county grand jury on a manslaughter charge and is expected to be held in Jefferson county jail on a $50,000 bond, while the woman accused of shooting her walked free, reported AL.com.

The case has raised alarm among pro-choice groups who say it is shocking evidence of how the state's restrictive abortion laws are now being used against pregnant women.

"The investigation showed that the only true victim in this was the unborn baby,'' said Lt Danny Reid of Pleasant Grove police following the shooting, reported AL.com in December. "It was the mother of the child who initiated and continued the fight which resulted in the death of her own unborn baby."

The Guardian has contacted Jefferson county district attorney's office for comment.

It comes after the Alabama governor, Kay Ivey ,signed a bill in May banning abortion in almost every circumstance – including rape and incest – posing a challenge to Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 supreme court judgment that guaranteed abortion rights across the nation.

Alabama is one of 38 states with fetal homicide laws that recognize a fetus as a potential victim.

It is also a "stand-your-ground" state, which means people are allowed to use physical force to defend themselves if their reason is considered "justifiable".

The ruling has prompted outcry on Twitter – including from abortion groups, who spoke out in Jones's support.

"Marshae Jones was indicted for manslaughter for losing a pregnancy after being shot in the abdomen FIVE times. Her shooter remains free," wrote Alabama-based abortion group the Yellowhammer Fund on Twitter. "We're going to get Marshae out of jail and assist with her legal representation."

Ilyse Hogue, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, tweeted: "Marshae Jones was indicted for homicide when someone shot her in the stomach while she was pregnant, ending her pregnancy. They said she 'started it.' The shooter went free. This what 2019 looks like for a pregnant woman of colour without means in a red state. This is now."

[mongers]

.....

Ilyse Hogue, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, tweeted: "Marshae Jones was indicted for homicide when someone shot her in the stomach while she was pregnant, ending her pregnancy. They said she 'started it.' The shooter went free. This what 2019 looks like for a pregnant woman of colour without means in a red state. This is now."

Don't worry Gaby, some will be along in a while to explain why this is all entirely reasonable.

[Eddie Teach]

It almost sounds like the writer would be happier if the woman defending herself from the pregnant lady was charged.