On Friday night, the Supreme Court ordered the abortion pill mifepristone to continue to be made available to women by mail as challenges continue to be litigated in lower courts. As I mentioned on Fox yesterday before the ruling, the Court usually restores the status quo while challenges are being heard. That is what it did again in this case. However, there are dissents from two of the most vocal critics of abortion rights: Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. In the only decision in the case, Justice Alito strongly suggests that some of his colleagues (cited by name) are engaging in rank hypocrisy in using what is known as the “shadow docket” for these purposes.
As a result of last night’s decision, the drug will continue to be available by mail and can be used for up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy
On April 7, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas invalidated the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone despite its availability for many years. The challenge to how the drug was approved came decades after the drug was approved and long after the time for such challenges had run. However, there were a series of changes, including recent changes in 2020, that challengers cited in support of the lower court’s review. Judge Kacsmaryk found that the agency had failed to meet critical federal standards for promulgating these rule changes.
After the Texas ruling, a federal judge in Washington state added a complication by issuing an opposing preliminary injunction that barred the FDA from “altering the status quo and rights as it relates to the availability of mifepristone.” Many of us stated that the dueling injunctions made an expedited review by the Court extremely likely.
Notably, the Court did not uphold the compromise struck by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in enjoining some recent changes while continuing to allow the drug to be distributed nationally.
The Fifth Circuit considered some of these early changes to be beyond review due to the timing of the challenge. However, while lifting Judge Kacsmaryk’s injunction on the drug nationally, it preserved some of the injunction of recent FDA changes. Those changes would have limited the ability to get the drug without a doctor’s involvement as well as limiting the time when the drug could be taken in the early stages of a pregnancy.
The Justice Department and Danco Laboratories, which makes the name brand version of mifepristone, Mifeprex, brought the matter to the Court for expedited review in seeking to lift all of the injunctions.
The Court used the “shadow docket” (used for procedural decisions) to dispense with the case. It did not include a majority decision or list the justices voting to restore the availability of the drug. However, Thomas and Alito did publish a dissenting opinion by Alito that lashed out at their colleagues not only for their decision but also the use of the shadow docket for this purpose.
Justice Alito noted that the decision of the Court was unnecessary because the FDA could have still made the drug available pending appeal. Thus, the FDA could have used its enforcement discretion to allow Danco to continue distributing mifepristone pending final resolution in the case. As such, Alito argued that “the applicants are not entitled to a stay because they have not shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the interim.”
The discussion of the use of the shadow docket was interesting for a number of reasons. First, Alito called out three colleagues by referring to past objections from Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Amy Coney Barrett in the use of the shadow docket.
The referral to the justices was a peevish moment for the Court since Justice Alito was previously criticized for the use of the shadow docket to make major rulings. He used this occasion to level the same objection and suggest a degree of hypocrisy in the majority.
The term “shadow docket” is often credited to University of Chicago law professor William Baude who used it to describe the summary decisions in a law review article in 2015. He noted that the Court was issuing “a number of noteworthy rulings which merit more scrutiny than they have gotten. In important cases, it granted stays and injunctions that were both debatable and mysterious.”
The shadow docket often handles emergency requests, but the docket is meant to resolve largely procedural, not substantive questions. Alito noted that he has defended the use of the docket in the past only now to find critics on the Court using the docket for the same purpose.
Indeed, he leads off the opinion with that shot across the bow of his three colleagues. He cited Justice Kagan for a dissenting opinion in 2022 (Merrill v. Milligan) in which she criticized as a stay “based on the scanty review this Court gives matters on its shadow docket.” He noted Kagan also criticized another stay in 2021 (Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson) in a dissent objecting that the order was “emblematic of too much of this Court’s shadow-docket decisionmaking— which every day becomes more unreasoned.” Likewise, he noted that Justice Sotomayor objected in 2019 (Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant) to the use of the docket to “shortcut” the process of review. Finally, he noted that Justice Barrett in 2021 (Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant) objected that the Court should not act “on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing and oral argument” in a case that is “first to address the questions presented.”
While he did not mention commentary, the objections of these three justices were supported by liberal pundits and press who railed against the use of the shadow docket in such cases. Critics slammed the conservatives for using the shadow docket as more evidence of “a wildly undemocratic institution” and making decisions “in the middle of the night” with “zero transparency or explanation, takes it to a whole other level.”
Some of those critics are now applauding this use of the docket.
Alito could not resist the irony of the moment and noted “I did not agree with these criticisms at the time, but if they were warranted in the cases in which they were made, they are emphatically true here.”
I expect the justices would respond that this order preserves the status quo rather than renders a major change in the existing precedent or practices. Chief Justice John Roberts also criticized the use of the shadow docket in 2022 when the Court voted 5-4 to restore a Trump-era rule limiting states’ and Native American tribes’ power over large energy projects. However, that decision effectively overturned nearly 50-year-old interpretations of the Clean Water Act. He joined a dissent by Kagan in Louisiana v. American Rivers that objected that the decision “renders the Court’s emergency docket not for emergencies at all” but “another place for merits determinations — except made without full briefing and argument.”
I think that this use of the shadow docket was distinguishable and more defensible since it restored the status quo ante in the area.
This matter is far from over. The Court does not explain its decision to restore the availability of the drug and could well ultimately agree with a lower court in finding that the agency failed to properly promulgate these rule changes, particularly more recent changes. Justice Alito stressed, “[c]ontrary to the impression that may be held by many, that disposition would not express any view on the merits of the question whether the FDA acted lawfully in any of its actions regarding mifepristone.”
The case will be heard in the Fifth Circuit in oral arguments on Wed., May 17 at 1 p.m. CT.
Here is the opinion: Danco Laboratories v. Alliance Hippocratic Medicine
Nothing enrages the left more than laws that restrict their ability to intentionally kill living, growing, genetically distinct, unborn human beings. Prior to Dobbs, doctors in the U.S. were killing more than 600,000 unborn beings each year.
Steve Vladeck (UT Austin law prof):
“I keep coming back to this passage in Justice Alito’s dissent—which invokes “legitimate doubts” that the government would comply with a court order; doesn’t cite any authority for that claim; and suggests the burden is on the government to overcome the doubts he doesn’t document.”
https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1649910502762455041
In the common sense civilized world, the killing of innocents is called murder and by any other name it is still murder. Along with that if you are of the Christian faith you and you yourself will answer for it.
It’s been over 60 years since I took my Comparative Religion course but I think what you wrote is the belief of all truly faithful adherents of all the monotheistic religions, not just Christianity
When did we become a theocracy? I don’t care what your religion says.
Also, not all monotheistic religions are anti-abortion. Sects of Shia Islam and Reform Judaism for example support abortion rights in certain contexts. I am sure there are christian sects that also believe that a mother’s life should not be sacrificed for a fetus.
Religion is just a socially constructed set of morals that should have no basis in the governance of a secular government.
I am sure there are christian sects that also believe that a mother’s life should not be sacrificed for a fetus.
If the mother’s life is in danger, that’s a whole different story, and pro-lifers recognize that. There is no state in which abortion would be illegal in that situation.
Religion is just a socially constructed set of morals that should have no basis in the governance of a secular government.
False. We live in a participatory democracy where people get to vote for elected representatives based on what’s important to them. If their values are informed by religion, they are still entitled to participate and support such values just as much as anybody else.
There are people who are wish to make abortion illegal in all circumstances, including when the mother’s life is endangered. For example, in this survey, 8% say that: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/
Wow, I’m surprised it’s as high as 8%. But that’s still low, and a restriction supported by only 8% is unlikely ever to become law. Also, are there any “Christian sects” that hold this as a matter of doctrine? That was what you asserted, and I’m curious what they are if you have that information.
It could be much higher than 8% in some states:
“Anti-abortion-rights groups, like Pro-Life Wisconsin, have described the “life of the mother” exception as unnecessary and wrong. The Idaho GOP just approved a platform with no lifesaving exception. Republican candidates like Matthew DePerno, the Republican running to be Michigan’s attorney general, oppose all exceptions to abortion bans, and that includes to save a mother’s life. Conservative states are rushing to eliminate or narrow existing exceptions to their laws. Powerful groups like Students for Life, Feminists for Life, and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) argue that “abortion is never medically necessary” and that doctors should always be punished for intentionally taking a fetal life.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/abortion-ban-life-of-the-mother-exception/670582/ (links embedded in the article)
Strict Catholics are among those that reject abortion without exception.
Strict Catholics are among those that reject abortion without exception.
That’s not what the Catholic Church says. Can you cite a source? Here is one with a the following direct quote from the Pope:
Never and in no case has the Church taught that the life of the child must be preferred to that of the mother.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/exception-to-save-the-life-of-the-mother-12052
Here’s one discussion: https://www.catholic.com/qa/must-a-catholic-woman-sacrifice-her-life-for-her-unborn-baby
It’s quite clear that elective abortions are not allowed, even if the mother’s life is at risk. Your own link describes situations that Catholics do not consider abortion (“It becomes necessary now to see why a medical procedure, such as the excision of a cancerous, pregnant uterus, is sometimes ethically permissible and should not be called an abortion“) while rejecting anything they do consider an abortion (“there is no justification for a direct attack on the child’s life as a means of saving the mother’s”).
ATS, you are arguing in circles. Your opinion is understood and accepted as valid because you have some basis for it. The law is different than an opinion, and as already said by you and Oldman, can be correct or wrong. There is no one answer. There is only an argument why one opinion would make a better law than the other.
You haven’t shown that your opinion satisfies the needs.
1) Abortion is taking a life, no matter how you rationalize the age criteria.
2) You are basing things on today’s that change with time. That means your opinion of when abortion should be permitted has no endpoint.
3) The mother is not the only person involved in the child’s life. Two people created that life in a society with specific morals and laws. You deal only with one person lacking any consideration of societal needs.
4) John Say has an interesting idea. You are correct. The mother can demand the child’s removal from her body, but the child has a right to live, so the mother’s rights end if the child needs to die to satisfy the mother.
5) We have all sorts of history on the subject, some religious and some secular. That tells you many different ideas are in play, so no singular one will satisfy all.
6) Roe V Wade didn’t belong in the federal courts. It is now in the state courts, and the states have a right to determine the law.
7) There is an ability to change the law and make it federal. There is a process that shouldn’t be sacrificed so you can have your way.
8) There will be objections to various state laws, but no one will be denied an abortion based on your criteria. The only denial will be where abortion is not permitted.
8) You do not want to accept the answer of the people of each state. You feel you should dictate how what, and where. Yours is an authoritarian approach.
My approach is to let the states decide based on what the people want. I am not happy that the killing will continue and that in some states viable children will have their arms and legs torn off their bodies. The people of each state can debate what is happening. It is not a political issue, nor is it something to be used as a weapon against the other party. It’s a terrible decision that has to be made where one way or the other that decision will cause harm to some.
My hope is the number of children killed will fall as people adjust to the realities involved. I have faith that most people, whether they vote to permit abortion or not, are not satisfied with the killing of children. The earlier the death, the more palatable, but it is still a death.
The fetus has no rights. Neither does sperm. Or eggs.
The number of “children” killed is zero, because a fetus is not a child. I don’t know when the pro life movement became anti- English language.
“The fetus has no rights”
ATS is the authoritarian who is talking. People, not just you, determine the laws they wish to live under. Many believe the child has a right to survive from conception. Some wish to dismember it as it exits the vagina.
Who made you king?
“The number of “children” killed is zero, because a fetus is not a child.”
Many mothers will tell you they lost their child when they miscarried. Are you calling them liars?
Have you never heard of the phrase ‘now pregnant with child’?
“I don’t know when the pro life movement became anti- English language.”
It never did. You wish to provide people with the right to kill the child but want to prevent them from saying, ‘now pregnant with child’.
You are full of contradictions.
SM – You are free to make arguments that parallel mine.
But please do not attibute to me your version of my argument.
My argument – also that of Lawrence Tribe and Walter Block is that:
A PERSON has the right to control of their own body. Including the removal of a fetus or even a child from that body – from the moment of conception through the moment of birth.
If that removal results in the death of the fetus or child – so be it. But the woman can not require – at any stage that the removal of the fetus/child results in the death of the fetus/child.
This is consistent with millenia of human morality. We are forbidden from Killing others – except in self defense and defense of others.
But we have no sanction-able duty to save the life of another. Negative morality – moral constraints that if violated result in government sanctions are all affirmative actions. The LAw – negative morality is “thou shalt not”. Postive morality – moral duties are not imposed on us by government and not be force.
We are obligated by our religion or similar beleifs to help the poor – government does not and can not impose positive morality upon us. There is no positive morality that any human can live up to – positive moral duties are infinite and insatiable.
Thous shalt not is something we can manage.
John, I prefer your version to my paraphrased one, no matter who the original author was.
“A PERSON has the right to control of their own body. Including the removal of a fetus or even a child from that body – from the moment of conception through the moment of birth.
If that removal results in the death of the fetus or child – so be it. But the woman can not require – at any stage that the removal of the fetus/child results in the death of the fetus/child.”
My paraphrased recount: “The mother can demand the child’s removal from her body, but the child has a right to live, so the mother’s rights end if the child needs to die to satisfy the mother.”
John, I didn’t quote you or anyone else. I paraphrased some things you said before. You are free to correct any differences in the statement, but it wasn’t my idea to start with. You were the one to mention the idea on the blog. Not to state your name would be taking that idea as my own. Why don’t you state the differences in the two versions that you find objectionable instead
of telling another not to paraphrase your earlier statement? Did you expect me to quote it?
Regardless of my laxk of care regarding spelling and Gramar. I tend to be careful about how I express arguments.
You will note that quite often I express particular arguments in the same way often with exactly the same words.
This is because small variations in the words can change the actual argument.
This is in contrast to those on the left who are always careless and often deliberately mangle words.
Words are NOT violence. Framing arguments suggesting they are has consequences and distorts thinking.
The use of force is NOT always unjustified.
I do not as an example beleive that J6 was more than a legitimate protest that got out of control – probably do to the incompetence of the Capitol Police.
Increasingly the evidence is that the CP triggered the violence by tear gassing themselves and then the crowd.
Interest in J6 seems to have died. But ALL the video should be made public.
While what Carlson did with it was damning, at the same time Carlson is NOT going to give it the time that is needed.
It needs crowdsourced – left and right. I beleive the number of Feds identified in J6 is likely to exceed 100.
This people all need tracked through the entire day, and their role at every step identified, as do the Antifa infiltrators.
This will not be done by Fox or the MSM.
Regardless, back to my point – J6 was NOT a justified instance of violence.
But Violence CAN be justified. Actual insurection CAN be justified.
The Words matter. One argument may be correct, an adjacent similar one may be false.
The differences often appear subtle – because the word differences are small.
But usually the differences are NOT small.
Humans KNOW (mostly) what is right and what is wrong.
Most of us as an example KNOW that taking a hammer of the skull of a new born is wrong.
Most of us KNOW it would have STILL been wrong an hour earlier in the womb.
Much of what purports to be debates with the left is semantics.
There is no government right to speak – therefore constraints on what is in school (Government) libraries, or what teachers (government employees) can teach are NOT violations of the first amendment. While government efforts to cesor or to induce others to censor political speech are both violations and WRONG.
The use of muddy language can make these appear to be the same.
But most people can distinguish.
Use my arguments if you wish. Re-frame them your own way. or change them if you think you can make them better.
They are not mine anyway. Few if any ideas are new, We all learn from others.
Most of my arguments come from classical liberalism – which itself is built in millenia of moral and philosophical development.
But I mostly do not seek credit – they are not my arguments anyway, and I may not defend your reframing of my argument.
It is possible that you may improve on it. Or not. But I am responsible for my own framing.
And though I am careful with that – I do on occasion misframe an argument.
Small changes matter – which is one of the reasons that I tend NOT to reframe tested arguments.
Often stationing them almost as if they are laws.
That can be boring. But morality is NOT supposed to be creative.
.”This is because small variations in the words can change the actual argument.”
John, that is why I paraphrased what you wrote based on the writings of others. I didn’t use quotation marks. That is standard. I prefer quoting another, but when the words aren’t available, I paraphrase.
“But I mostly do not seek credit”
Whether you seek credit or not isn’t the issue. It is important to show that the concept has longevity and that more people espouse it than just one. It also points people to the previous discourse, where they mismanaged the idea.
SM all I am looking for is that you please do not credit me when you paraphrase an argument of mine.
I appreciate the respect – but I do not want to have to defend a restatement of one of my arguments with different language.
I do not want to have to analyze your restatement of an argument of mine to determine its flaws.
If you like anyone else’s argument – use it, as your own. Then YOU get to defend it as you have framed it.
If I like your reframing – I will defend it to the extent I can.
If I am uncomfortable with the changes – I will likely leave you to defend your own claims rather that criticise your reformulation.
Which is what I am looking to avoid – having to criticise something that is 3/4 mine, because I see problems in the 1/4 that is not.
This is also why I do not change critical parts of arguments that I make EXCEPT to correct weakness, error, or flaws.
It is boring to write the same thing the same way all the time. But creative writing in the domain of law, morality and government is undesireable.
“SM all I am looking for is that you please do not credit me when you paraphrase an argument of mine.
I appreciate the respect – but I do not want to have to defend a restatement of one of my arguments with a different language.”
John, if what I say is incorrect, I hope I am correct. You deserve the credit, but that is not the only thing. Using a name brings back a memory of the statement and context. Some of those statements are too important to forget.
I am requesting you provide all those important statements in writing, so I don’t have to rely on memory and can get them right, 🙂
If you paraphrase me, and you credit me, and you do not make exactly the same argument as I do – if you are off even a little.
Then I am going to have to attack YOUR version of my argument.
The dimwitted leftists here will think I am attacking my own argument.
And I will have to attack you over something that I would not do otherwise.
I do not care if you make arguments similar to mine that are mostly correct.
I do not need to attack minor problems in arguments that are mostly correct.
EXCEPT when you credit them to me.
I have been trying very hard in this exchange not to attack or alienate you.
The argument you attribute to me is NOT my argument.
It is Similar, but not identical.
It is a strong argument, but it is also a flawed argument.
First I do not want it attributed to me. I will not defend it.
Next, Ideas are not owned by anyone. My arguments and ideas are not “my own”, They are my expression of those of thousands of years of brilliant thinkers.
Just borrow from others – you are free to borrow from me – without attribution.
I am actually flattered that you would make your own permutation of one of my arguments. But it is still YOUR argument now.
I am an influence not an owner of your argument.
Please do not make me an antagonist, by attributing YOUR argument to me.
“I am an influence not an owner of your argument.”
John, we are talking about ideas. No one owns ideas. Words spoken need context, which names often provide. Paraphrasing is not quoting, something all people should recognize. When there are differences in meaning, what a blessing to discuss them. It is the best way to learn, so please do not feel you are attacking by providing different words. I consider those words a gift.
John, I don’t wish problems on you, so I will try to use a pronoun or an explanation instead of a name.
You make many excellent points, even though there may be occasional disagreement which doesn’t diminish the fundamental point made. It is more a problem of usage.
This has gone too far.
Either you got my point or you didn’t.
ATS has a problem with good ideas that are not his own. He cannot focus. Like a true leftist, he changes the words and meanings of others superficially. That is what you are talking about, at least in part.
His responses to me were authoritarian. I accepted his opinion, but he will not reciprocate. To him, there is only one right way, HIS, and all others have to be censored even at the point of a gun. He doesn’t know how to deal with democratically conceived ideas though he uses democratic ideals to push his points. That type of hypocrisy is what the murderers of the twentieth century did. As seen in his response to me, those democratic points fell by the wayside.
He then twists ideas into pretzels. He is dictatorial and says, “The fetus has no rights.”. Natural rights are from God (if one believes). The others are laws made by people. The discussion had to do with laws where there are differences of opinion as to what entity has a natural right. We make laws about animal abuse. We can make laws about children that are not yet born. Not according to ATS, who believes only his voice or the voice he follows counts. He wants to be king.
I love the way Reagan expressed it in “A Time for Choosing”
The maximum individual liberty consistent with public order – or something close to that.
Jordan Petersen has touched on this – as have many others.
It is a ying/yang thing and it pervades many many many things.
The perfect balance – does not mean equal. Government is necescary. But it also must be strictly limited.
Freedom becomes anarchy and chaos without a certain minimum of order.
Order is necescary – but more than a small amount is gradually rising tryany
I write constantly of criminal law, civil law and tort law. – These are critical to society – They must be sufficient that real freedom is amplified.
But very little is needed before the harm outweighs the benefits.
We have debated the First amendment here constantly recently.
WE legitimately prosecute disorderly conduct – shouting down a speaker as a crime. We do not recognize it as an excercise of free speech.
Because we NEVER recognize any excercise of liberty that infringes on the actual liberty of others as a right.
Ying/Yang There is no right to free speech if all we have is everyone shouting at each other with no one able to hear.
We allow actual restictions on Free speech where the speech we restrict itself deprives others of their rights.
Or a reductio ad asbsurdem – lighting a fire can be expressive conduct – a right. Lighting a fire to your neighbors barn is likely expressive conduct. and probably protest. It is also a crime – because YOUR excercise of YOUR right to expression directly infringed on the rights of another – such as to their property.
There is no right to infringe on the rights of others.
Anything that you do that you THINK is a right – is NOT if it actually infringes on the rights of others.
Ying/Yang.
Not the absolute freedom of anarchy/chaos. But the maximum freedom that does not infringe on the freedom of others.
I do not care if you take my ideas as your own.
I do not care if you change them, paraphrase them, reframe them, or build on them.
When I cite that Tribe and Block have expressed the same argument regarding abortion – that is not to assure they get credit, or to avoid plagerism.
But to establish that this is not some fringe libertarian extremism – Block and Tribe are at opposite ends of politics.
I massively use arguments from JS Mill without attribution, and his arguments rest on others he did not attribute.
Ideas can not be owned. Not in politics, not in science.
My concern is that your reframing is NOT the same argument.
And I am not prepared to defend ti. That does not mean it is wrong, possibly better – though in this instance I think it is not.
Again your free to try to improve.
But when you do – YOU are responsible to defend the new version.
“I do not care if you take my ideas as your own.”
I care.
“My concern is that your reframing is NOT the same argument.
And I am not prepared to defend ti.”
You don’t have to. It was paraphrased not quoted. .I am prepared to defend what I say
SM
I do not care which you prefer.
I do not care whether you paraphrased me or came up with the argument on your own, or more likely from multiple influences.
I do not claim ownership of my own arguments – only my particular expression of them.
What I care about is not getting into a bind where my choice is to defend YOUR argument, because you called it mine,
Or to attack you.
This is not personal.
I am trying NOT to make it an attack.
It is a simple request.
Don;t credit me unless you quote me.
Frankly I do not care if you make my argument EXACTLY as I did without attributing me.
I do not own ideas.
Why is it that you think rights and morality are determined by public opinion ?
I will be happy to discuss seriously the rights and morality that are involved, though I have seen little evidence that you are capable of thought about rights or morality.
More disturbing regarding your polls is that 19% think that abortion should be legal in all cases – no exceptions.
Why not 20 minutes after birth ? Why not a year ?
I would note that for most of human existence there were no abortions – no exceptions.
Your angry that 8% of people are in harmony with nature ?
OT good news:
Robert Maguire: “In a landmark decision, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled Friday that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional under the Alaska Constitution’s equal protection doctrine.”
O T
Another chapter in the COVID hoax.
There is a German meta-study that suggests that COVID masks may have damaged mens’ brains and testes, not necessarily in equal degree, and that the development of unborn children was hindered, due to elevated levels of Carbon Dioxide caused by the masks. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11982039/Face-masks-raise-risk-stillbirths-testicular-issues-cognitive-decline-study-says.html In order to avoid being sued, I wish to say that I am not “endorsing” this study, but just pointing it out.
Abortion, surgical or medical, procedures are about revenue. The Pro-aborts care not a whit about the lives at stake. Fact is, abortion centers play the “medical services” shtick while failing to provide medical services when they goes wrong. Per Lifenews.com,
A Florida judge recommended Tuesday that abortionist Dr Christopher Saputa be permanently banned from performing surgical abortions after three women nearly died of botched abortions under his care. Saputa’s license has been temporarily suspended since last July when state health inspectors described him as a “great public danger.” In an orderthis week, Judge W. David Watkins recommended that the Florida Board of Medicine suspend Saputa’s medical license for one year and permanently ban him from performing obstetric and gynecological surgeries, per The Tampa Free Press.
https://www.tampafp.com/florida-abortion-doctor-suspension/
Saputa worked for the American Family Planning abortion facility in Pensacola, which the state shut down last May for “endangering the health, safety and welfare” of its patients. State health officials said the abortion facility had hundreds of safety violations, the worst involving nearly killing three women in botched abortions within a span of nine months. In March, an order from the Division of Administrative Hearings permanently revoked the abortion facility’s license and banned anyone with direct or indirect ownership of it from ever applying for another abortion license in Florida.
Abortions are about big business. Two lives enter an abortion center but only 1 leaves, and sometimes that life barely makes it out alive
Jonathan: It was a good day yesterday when the SC ruled (7-2) that mifepristone should remain on the market pending further litigation. But Justice Alito chose the occasion to engage in some churlish criticism of 3 other Justices by name. Clarence Thomas agreed without, as is typical of him, even explaining his position. That why the Court’s “secret docket” is under so much criticism. You could sense from his opinion that Alito is still feeling the heat from his widely condemned decision in Dobbs–that he probably leaked in advance. But Alito and Thomas are unchastened. They think they can dictate by judicial fiat the reproductive rights of women. It’s called “legislation” from the bench. Alito and Thomas won’t be satisfied until they can ban abortion nationwide–through banning the abortion pill. That’s the part you missed in your column. So let’s move on to other news this week.
The Fox settlement of the Dominion defamation lawsuit this week and the shooting of a Black teenager in North Kansas City have a certain symmetry. Andrew Lester, the 84 yr. old who shot 16 yr. old Black teenager Ralph Yari in the head from inside the house, has now pled not guilty to felony charges. No doubt Lester will claim he had a right to self-defense under both the “Castle Doctrine” or “stand your ground” laws common in states like Missouri. Neither would apply since Lester was under no threat from Yari who simply was trying to pick up his siblings but knocked on the wrong door. The Q is why Lester would think Yari posed a threat?
Lester’s 28 yr. old grandson, Klint Ludwig, has some insight. Ludwig told the Kansas City Star how his grandfather fell “further down the right-wing rabbit hole as far as doing the election-dumping stuff and COVID conspiracies and disinformation, fully buying into Fox News, OAN kind of line–a 24-hour news cycle of fear and paranoia”. Ludwig thinks his grandfather feared Black people because of the steady diet of race-baiting by Tucker Carlson and other Fox hosts.
Despite the Dominion settlement Carlson this week continued to intentionally lie–instilling in his viewers a fear of people of color. On his show Carlson said “When you let the mob loot, you are doomed. This is why we used to shoot looters–not because we hated them, it wasn’t personal–but in order to defend the foundation of all we have, which is private property secured by law. Without that, we would be living in savagery and chaos”. No doubt these 24/7 racist tropes by Carlson and other Fox over the years caused fear in the mind of Lester–who feared for his “private property” by the “mob”–represented by a 16 yr old Black at his front door. That’s the problem the Dominion settlement won’t solve. Fox hosts will continue to intentionally lie to keep it’s MAGA viewers. It’s strictly business, you understand. The continued shooting and killing of innocent Black people won’t change Fox’s business model.
Alioto’s dissent had nothing to do with abortion
“. . . instilling in his viewers a fear of people of color.”
And yet there’s not a single mention of race in Carlson’s quote.
Blacks will be happy to know that YOU associate them with mob looting.
THE FDA IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
SUBSTANCE INGESTION IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
ABORTION IS HOMI-CIDE (I.E. MAN, KILL) AFTER 24 HOURS OF FERTILIZATION.
____________________________________________________________________
The Constitution provides maximal freedom to individuals and it does not prohibit substance ingestion.
The 9th Amendment provides the freedom of substance ingestion in the extant absence of any clause in the Constitution to deny substance ingestion.
The FDA is unconstitutional; there may be compelling arguments for any and all industries to self-regulate.
Congress has no power enumerated by Article 1, Section 8, to regulate food, substances or pharmacological substances or concoctions.
A human child exists after 24 hours of fertilization and it will develop and persist for about 76 years.
Abortion is homi-cide (i.e. man, kill) per 18 U.S. Code § 1841 – Protection of unborn children.
_________________________________________________________________________
9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
18 U.S. Code § 1841 – Protection of unborn children
(a)
(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
Steve Vladeck (who has a new book out in May: “The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic”), paraphrasing Alito in Danco v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, and in West Virginia v B.P.J.:
Justice Alito last night: “The majority is wrongly granting emergency relief in a case in which I’m not convinced the criteria are satisfied.”
Justice Alito on April 6: “We should grant emergency relief because we should put aside the reasons why the criteria are not satisfied.”
Homicide pill. That said, 6 weeks to baby meets granny in biological and legal state. The Pro-Choice ethical religion denies the dignity and agency of women and men.
6 weeks to baby meets granny in biological and legal state.
I saw this phrase before, and don’t understand what it means. Can you explain?
Thanks,
Uncle Henry
Some of those critics are now applauding this use of the docket.
As usual with critics who sound so righteous at the time, it all depends whose ox is being gored.
That actually isn’t the only or even the primary difference, and suggesting that it is ignores all of the substantive differences in the cases (e.g., whether there’s any question about whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring the original case, who is harmed by staying versus not staying the lower court ruling).
JT doesn’t address the differences, but we don’t have to join him in doing that.
Apparently the author of Dobbs did not actually want the issue of abortion care to be decided via democratic processes rather than in the courts.
It appears you did not read Alioto’s dissent which had nothing to do with “abortion care” or states’ rights relative to it
Nonsense. He’s responding to a stay request for “The April 7, 2023 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, case No. 2:22–cv–223,” which is a ruling about abortion care and states’ rights relative to it. Have you read that ruling?
Read all FOUR relevant opinions
– the Texas finding relates to 2000 and 2016 FDA processes and could just as easily have been written about Lipitor as abortion (and nominally that’s why it was appealed by Danco)
– The Fifth Circuit finding on that Danco appeal said it was too late to ajudicate 2000 FDA processes but that the 2016 FDA processes were flawed and made in a timely manner that the remedies for those flaws could be held (and nominally that’s why Danco and FDA appealed the 5th’s ruling)
– The majority of the Supreme Court said lets wait until the Fifth Circuit process is complete (with which I agree)
– Alioto dissent had nothing to do with any of this but was all about when and why stays that override lower courts (vs. injunctions) should or should not be granted. Again, as with the Texas ruling, these stays could relate to abortion or the voting rights act or immigration or religious freedom, examples of all Alioto provided
“the Texas finding … could just as easily have been written about Lipitor as abortion”
You think that doctors whose patients did NOT suffer negative side effects from Lipitor would have standing to file suit against the maker and the FDA? I don’t. I doubt they’d have standing even if their patients did have negative side-effects, only the patients would. In this case, none of the doctors who sued in TX were treating patients for negative side effects from medication abortions.
In finding standing for the emergency doctors, the 5th Circuit panel focused on the statistical certainty that because doctors were no longer involved at the dispensing stage, emergency room doctors would be called on to deal with complications, which is what the FDA’s mandatory advice and agreement said. Had the FDA not removed the requirement for doctors to be involved at the early stage, the 5th Circuit would not likely have found standing.
In any event, we don’t know if standing affected the Supreme Court’s decision to vacate the stay, since they did not deign to explain themselves.
It’s not a statistical certainty that the plaintiffs would ever treat such a patient.
There’s a good analysis of the 5th Circuit’s treatment of standing here, drawing on the SCOTUS ruling in Summers v. Earth Island Institute: https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/mifepristone-and-the-rule-of-law-f6a
He also points out “Moreover, conceptually, the Fifth Circuit’s approach would dramatically expand the law of standing. Any federal rule that could in some way be said to reduce “safety” could be challenged by a sufficiently motivated plaintiff organization. Suppose the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration relaxes some airbag requirement. Under the Fifth Circuit’s theory, the American Association of Pro-Car Safety Doctors could sue, on the theory that an unspecified additional number of people will be injured in car accidents and go to the E.R., and some unspecified number of doctor-members will have to treat their injuries, stressing them out. Even non-safety rules could be challenged on similar theories. …”
As for “they did not deign to explain themselves,” such is the nature of the shadow docket and a key reason that many complain about it.
All of which has nothing to do with Alioto’s dissent as I wrote. Try to focus on one line of attack at a time
id not actually want the issue of abortion care to be decided via democratic processes
That makes no sense. This case has nothing to do with the democratic process. It is about whether a federal bureaucracy (unelected) is entitled to a stay of a federal court order that it overreached. The first issue is one of administrative law (what the agency could legally do), and the second is about whether that agency has demonstrated it will suffer irreparable harm by having to wait until the appeal is decided. Read the dissent for yourself:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22a901_3d9g.pdf
Here is an excerpt:
Contrary to the impression that may be held by many, that disposition would not express any view on the merits of the question whether the FDA acted lawfully in any of its actions regarding mifepristone. Rather, it would simply refuse to take a step that has not been shown as necessary to avoid the threat of any real harm during the presumably short period at issue.
oldmanfromkansas,
Thanks for the link, but no need; I read it last night.
My comment was a reference to Alito’s opinion in Dobbs that “the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives” (and similarly throughout the opinion, e.g., “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” “we thus return the power to weigh those arguments to the people and their elected representatives”), an authority that Kacsmaryk did not honor.
Alito isn’t truthful when he claims that there would be no “threat of any real harm during the presumably short period at issue.” There are pregnant women right now who seek medication abortions and who would have been harmed by allowing the 5th Circuit’s ruling to go into effect. And as Danco pointed out in their pleading, it was already faced with conflicting rulings from the district court in WA and the 5th Circuit (e.g., “The result is a regulatory mess that will irreparably injure Danco by making it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for Danco to continue selling its only product. … The Fifth Circuit’s order, standing alone, will irreparably injure Danco. In order to distribute Mifeprex under something other than the 2023 REMS, Danco must: revise product labels, packaging, and promotional materials; recertify providers; and amend its supplier- and distributor-contracts and policies (among other things)”), yet Alito was silent about how Danco could have acted legally in the face of both rulings and simply denies the harm to Danco. Frankly, it’s ironic that Alito argued there would be no “threat of any real harm” to Danco while ignoring that the doctors who filed suit in Kacsmaryk’s district did not face any harm at all.
A.N.D.
Anon – The FDA is a federal agency. This is an administrative law case. I don’t see how a federal court decision on an administrative law case relating to a federal agency diminishes state’s rights, unless the ruling says the FDA can preempt state regulation of abortion. Are you saying Justice Alito favors the FDA preempting states from regulating abortion? I doubt that’s his position in this case, but correct me if I’m wrong.
oldmanfromkansas,
I’m aware that the FDA is a federal agency. No, I’m not saying that Alito favors the FDA preempting states from regulating abortion. I’m saying that he’s not actually against the courts making broad abortion rulings as long as the rulings function to decrease abortion rights.
I also think Alito is pretending that people who lack standing (the appellants in the original case) instead have standing because he likes the outcome of Kacsmaryk’s ruling.
Anon – I now understand what you’re saying. And I can see why you’d conclude that, but I disagree. At least I don’t agree that that conclusion can be reached from his position in this case. Rather, I think you’re reading between the lines to attribute to him a hidden motive.
Even removing the abortion context, this case procedurally represents an undemocratic power grab by federal judges. Chevron deference is the law, and Kacsmaryk failed to observe it.
Kacsmaryk ruled that the agency’s approval of the drug back in 2000 was “arbitrary and capricious” in part because pregnancy is not an illness. He admits that “complications can arise during pregnancy, and said complications can be serious or life-threatening.” But for Kacsmaryk, the key flaw in the FDA’s longstanding drug approval decision was its failure to treat pregnancy as a “natural process essential to perpetuating human life.” Even though chemical abortions avoid surgical ones, he added, they somehow provide no “meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients,” so the FDA’s approval of mifepristone violates the FDA’s own drug approval regulations for that additional reason.
This is undemocratic judicial activism. It is not this district judge’s role to make these sweeping contentions. Keep in mind, again, that Kacsmaryk’s legal authority here was limited. The FDA is supposed to get deference as a matter of law. The reason for that deference, again, is that Congress tasks certain agencies with making certain regulatory and policy decisions because of their specialized expertise.
Democratically electing Congressmen who revise the powers of the FDA would be the appropriate route for correcting any perceived issues with its judgment. If Alito wanted to support the democratic process, he would have thrown out this case entirely and recommended a change in venue for the underlying case.
. . . this case procedurally represents an undemocratic power grab by federal judges. Chevron deference is the law . . .
Chevron deference is inherently undemocratic, as it gives wide discretion to unelected bureaucrats to make law, in the form of regulations that have the force and effect of law. So the above statement is nonsensical. Second, whether Chevron deference is still good law is debatable after the decisions last year in American Hospital Association v. Becerra and Becerra v. Empire Health.
This is undemocratic judicial activism. It is not this district judge’s role to make these sweeping contentions.
U.S. District Court judges have jurisdiction to declare actions by federal agencies illegal. They have the same jurisdiction to do so as the circuit courts and SCOTUS. They could get overruled, but that does not detract from their jurisdiction to make such rulings.
oldmanfromkansas,
FWIW, a different Anon. posted the 3:58pm response. And yes, absolutely, my take on it is a conjecture about Alito’s thinking. Maybe my conjecture is true, maybe not.
Anon – Thanks I appreciate the clarification. BTW, why not give yourself a screen name? That would alleviate any potential confusion.
Also, consider this: it’s possible Alito is anti-abortion and thus doesn’t want the federal government to make it easy to get an abortion pill, while still wanting the states to decide abortion regulations for themselves – on the grounds that the Constitution is silent on abortion and thus it is left to the states.
Your original assertion was that he does “not actually want the issue of abortion care to be decided via democratic processes rather than in the courts.” The “democratic process” you refer to appears to mean the state legislatures. Or it could mean Congress. Those are the only two options. Alito’s wanting to rein in a federal agency is irrelevant to either option, unless Congress had clearly authorized the FDA to act in the manner it did, which is being challenged.
So . . . do you believe Congress clearly authorized the FDA to act in the manner it did, and thus, a ruling against the FDA in this matter undermines the democratic process?
oldmanfromkansas,
Yes, I assume that Congress authorized the FDA to make these assessments, though I haven’t gone back to the legislation to check the wording of the authorization. I also think Kacsmaryk’s ruling undermines the rule of law, because he grants standing to people who under rules of standing should not have standing. If doctors have standing to challenge abortifacients even when they haven’t treated any patients for complications of those abortifacients, then doctors must also have standing to challenge gun laws if they have patients who’ve suffered from gun wounds, etc. It opens up a legal can of worms.
“Pregnant people” were not appealing the case though so any harm or not that they might face was irrelevant. A drug dealer and a rogue Federal agency were the appelants
oldmanfromkansas,
P.S. I don’t know whether you’re up for resuming our earlier exchange, but if so, here are the earlier questions I’m still hoping that you’ll address:
* Why do you believe that the natural right not to be killed attaches at conception / what characteristics of the zygote are key for you in deciding that this right attaches at conception (i.e., the way brain activity is a key characteristic for me later)?
* Do you believe that elective abortions should be legal in any of the following situations, and why or why not: rape? threat to the mother’s life or health? selective reduction (e.g., a multiple pregnancy in which one fetus is creating a risk to another fetus’s life)? medical reasons for the fetus (e.g., newly diagnosed with a condition that’s incompatible with life after birth)?
* You’re generally silent about the mother. She clearly has natural law and legal rights. Why do you conclude that her rights matter less than the natural law right you believe the embryo has? That is, even if you believe that an embryo has a natural law right not to be killed, why do you also believe that the embryo’s right outweighs the mother’s right against involuntary servitude? If it were possible to remove the embryo/fetus without killing it, but knowing that it would subsequently die prior to viability once removed, would that change the calculus for you? (I’m trying to get at whether your argument against abortion is about killing per se versus some right to use the woman’s/girl’s body. You often refer to “violent” killing, and in this scenario, it would die a natural death instead of being killed.)
A.N.D.
Anon – all good questions. And thanks for continuing this. My answers are necessarily relatively short given the medium, as books can be written on this topic.
I believe personhood attaches at conception. At that point the fertilized egg is a unique human being with all its DNA and with its own built-in purpose to live and develop and thrive. The fertilized egg proceeds through phases of growth to which medical science has given different names – zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus – but the organism itself remains the same other than its level of development and environment. Like all of us, given food, oxygen, and a life-sustaining environment – all of which are natural, not artificial, inside the womb – it will continue its progression into newborn, toddler, youngster, adolescent, and adult. If the fertilized egg fails to implant, that is just part of nature, but that is different than human activity to actively prevent it from implanting. If it dies from natural causes in utero (which one of my children did), that is also part of nature, but that is different from human activity to actively kill it while in utero. Philosophy has always recognized a qualitative difference between killing and letting die.
Given the above, I believe it is unnatural and contrary to basic principles of life and nature to abort electively. It is a separate question whether I believe elective abortions should be legal in such cases and in the harder cases you mention. With rape, I can certainly see that a better argument can be made that abortion is the lesser of two evils than with abortions elected due to convenience or wanting to avoid a child of the wrong sex – which is commonplace in places like China and India where baby boys are more valued than baby girls. But still even with rape there is the problem of the child being punished for the sins of the father. And I would: add even if my opponent in a debate wins that particular argument, he hasn’t won very much ground. With a threat to the life of the mother I favor legality. I am not aware of any pro-lifers who would be against taking a life to save a life. In certain types of problematic pregnancies the life of the baby cannot be saved anyway, so it would make no sense oppose abortion in those circumstances.
It’s not that I don’t believe the mother has rights. But certain rights she does not have, such as killing her own child. I don’t consider motherhood involuntary servitude, indeed I find that notion ridiculous. Pregnancy has been a glorious part of human nature since the dawn of time. If it were involuntary servitude, pregnancy itself would be outlawed by the 13th Amendment. To say it is servitude only where the mother wishes she had not become pregnant is a statement of pure ideology and has no basis in fact or law. It strikes me as similar to the statements of ideologues who say pro-life speech is violence against women. I remember in one case at SCOTUS during oral arguments (I don’t remember which) a NARAL or NOW attorney said that (that pro-life speech is violence), and she got laughed or groaned at even by the Justices who favored Roe v. Wade.
Here is an interesting question you asked: If it were possible to remove the embryo/fetus without killing it, but knowing that it would subsequently die prior to viability once removed, would that change the calculus for you? (. . . You often refer to “violent” killing, and in this scenario, it would die a natural death instead of being killed.). There are a few ways to interpret that question, depending on what “calculus” means, and depending on whether you mean that it would die because it was removed. If it means what mode of death do I think would be better given that the fetus would die anyway, I’d favor removing it and letting it die naturally rather than using violence (including chemical burning) to kill it. The means by which a person dies are important to his or her dignity, in my view. If you mean that it would be an elective abortion done without violence, it seems to me that the act of removing it from the natural environment in which it is living and thriving is a kind of violence. If you mean what do I think of an abortion in a case where the fetus is going to die before viability anyway, I’d say it is justified so as to not risk the mother’s life. Again, to take a life to save a life is a separate category, and in such cases violence is sometimes justified.
Finally – and this is in the nature of a concluding unscientific postscript – just think about the tens of millions of human beings who have been aborted; how many artists, educators, humanitarians, scientists, healers, and statesmen are we missing? It must be a great deal. While I’m not saying people who favor abortion on demand are happy about that, I think we can all agree it is a great loss to humanity.
Now . . . I’d like to know what you think of the above. Where are my weaknesses, in your view?
P.S. As I said before, I enjoy this because I’m not trying to convince you, and I don’t perceive that you are trying to convince me, so maybe we can each learn something.
Yours,
Uncle Henry
oldmanfromkansas,
Thanks for answering my questions.
I think that people often have different values and opinions, but we should be able to agree on facts, so I’ll start by responding to some factual issues.
Re: “Like all of us, given food, oxygen, and a life-sustaining environment – all of which are natural, not artificial, inside the womb – it will continue its progression into newborn, toddler, youngster, adolescent, and adult,” that’s false. The most common progression is: zygote forms, the cell splits once or twice or a few times, and then it dies prior to implantation. The next most common is that it implants but is soon miscarried, often before the first missed menses. All in all, even if there were no elective abortions at all, perhaps only 25-30% of all human conceptions would develop to birth. This is often due to significant genetic errors, which prevent the embryo from developing properly, often quite early (e.g., if the error prevents cellular respiration from occurring).
Re: “the fertilized egg is a unique human being with all its DNA,” that’s an oversimplification. A given individual’s DNA is not 100% identical, for varied reasons:
1) In all people, errors sometimes occur when our DNA is copied, and then the version with the error may be copied again. Copy errors that occur early in pregnancy proliferate to a greater degree, which is why “identical” twins and triplets can be genetically distinguished from one another even though they develop from a single zygote and so start off with the same DNA: they have different copy errors and/or different distributions of shared copy errors.
2) In some cases, distinct zygotes merge prior to implantation, and the resulting person will have different DNA in different parts of his/her body. (This is called chimerism: the presence of two or more genetically distinct cell populations in one organism.)
3) Some maternal cells cross the placental barrier, and if this isn’t the woman’s/girl’s first pregnancy, some cells from the previous pregnancy(ies) also remain in the uterus and can be incorporated into a new embryo. Ditto with cell transfer in monochorionic dizygotic (trizygotic) twins (triplets). This too results in chimerism.
4) There are other variations that can affect the DNA of different cells in a single person, such as when two sperm penetrate a single egg.
Re: “the organism itself remains the same other than its level of development and environment,” there too, I’d say that the biology is more complex: depending on what occurs in the pregnant woman’s body during the pregnancy, certain features might or might not develop (so it’s “exists/doesn’t exist” rather than “exists but is less/more developed”). For example, hormones in the woman’s body can affect the development (or lack thereof) of parts of the fetal reproductive system. And of course, not only might two embryos merge, as I noted above, but a single embryo might split into 2 or 3, so for this reason too, it’s not always true that “the organism itself remains the same.” (I don’t actually consider an embryo to be an organism in its own right, as it’s incapable of organismal homeostasis, but I don’t have a good word to use as a substitute.)
I agree that elective abortions are different from failure to implant and spontaneous abortions (miscarriage). I’m sorry to hear about your miscarriage.
Re: “I don’t consider motherhood involuntary servitude, indeed I find that notion ridiculous. … If it were involuntary servitude, pregnancy itself would be outlawed by the 13th Amendment. To say it is servitude only where the mother wishes she had not become pregnant is a statement of pure ideology and has no basis in fact or law,” let me clarify my own position: as I said in our earlier exchange, I don’t believe that consent to sex is consent to carrying a pregnancy to term. But women certainly can — and many do — consent to bringing the pregnancy to term, so pregnancy would not always be involuntary servitude, only when the consent is not there, if she were forced to continue the pregnancy. I’m not saying that this is how our laws view it; they don’t. But it’s how *I* view it, and I was curious about your response. Given that I don’t believe the embryo has any natural law rights, why do you find my stance “ridicuous”?
Re: “think about the tens of millions of human beings who have been aborted; how many artists, educators, humanitarians, scientists, healers, and statesmen are we missing? It must be a great deal. While I’m not saying people who favor abortion on demand are happy about that, I think we can all agree it is a great loss to humanity,” I don’t think of it as a loss. For me, the person never came into being (again because for me, an active brain is essential to personhood). I also do not consider it a loss when eggs or sperm die without conception taking place, or when a zygote dies naturally prior to implantation, and I only consider it a loss later if it was a wanted pregnancy, when my sense of loss is more a reflection of the parents’ hopes and my sympathy for the parents. Also, rather than it being “tens of millions,” it would probably be hundreds of billions, since ~70-75% of all conceptions are lost prior to birth, most prior to the first missed menses. That is, if you consider a zygote to be a person, many more people die prior to birth than are ever born, and if, say, 100 billion people have ever been born in human history, perhaps 300 billion were conceived but died prior to birth.
Re: “With a threat to the life of the mother I favor legality. I am not aware of any pro-lifers who would be against taking a life to save a life,” if you could equally choose to save the fetus and have the mother die, would that be as acceptable to you (since in both cases, it involves two persons for you, one of whom dies)? Or in this case do you value the mother’s life more than that of the embryo/fetus? (I’m on the side of the mother’s life counting more.)
Re: “certain rights [the mother] does not have, such as killing her own child,” this is the crux of our disagreement. You think she doesn’t; I think she does. As best I can tell, our difference of opinion is linked to our different views about whether an embryo/fetus has any natural rights. You think it has a natural law right to life, and I don’t. And that in turn is linked to the centrality of brain development for me, but not for you.
Anon – I’ll be more thorough later, but . . .
(1) When I said the fertilized egg “will” proceed through those stages, I recognize that’s not true in all cases, as in many cases it will die from natural causes as you point out. To my mind the fact that a certain percentage of fertilized eggs fail to reach full term for whatever reason stemming from nature does not change my view on whether it is justified to artificially kill the developing embryo/fetus. This is based on the qualitative difference between actively killing a living organism, and letting it die without intervening.
(2) It does seem, as you say, that our differences are based on whether we think a living human organism attains personhood at a certain minimum level of brain activity, or at conception.
I look forward to seeing your longer response later.
I’ve thought a bit more and believe that there are two other cruxes to our disagreement:
* You believe that when women consent to sex, they consent to bringing the pregnancy to term, whereas I believe that they only consent to the risk of becoming pregnant with the possibility of an abortion should they not wish to carry the pregnancy to term.
* There is no way to remove a non-viable embryo or fetus without killing it, so it’s unlike any analogy that one might want to introduce (e.g., it’s unlike refusing to donate blood or donate a kidney to save a person’s life, even when the other person dies as a result).
Re: “a living human organism,” we’re going to have to come up with some word other than “organism.” I don’t agree that an embryo/fetus is itself an organism. Its cells can maintain cellular homeostasis, but the embryo/fetus has no ability to maintain organismal homeostasis prior to viability, and even if theoretically able, it doesn’t actually do so prior to birth.
Anon (A.N.D.) – this will have to be in parts because my schedule today does not permit long enough computer time to answer everything in one setting.
As for the argument from the premise that when women consent to sex, they do not consent to bringing the pregnancy to term: That may be true as a factual matter, but to my mind it is not a valid argument for either the rightness or legality of elective abortions. The reason I say that is that it seems circular. To explain what I mean, I’ll have to give a hypothetical.
Imagine a society “S” that does not have any means of performing abortions, and so elective abortions are not possible. However, society S does have knives, and the law in that society says a mother has a legal right to kill her baby with a knife before it’s one year old, if she doesn’t want to keep it. Let’s call that practice “infanticide.”
Now suppose a debate takes place in society S about the appropriateness of infanticide and whether it should, in fact, be illegal. In that debate someone argues that a woman who consents to sex does not consent to raising a baby beyond a year. That would be true, given the state of the law in society S. As you can see, that does not really answer the question of the appropriateness of the law which makes infanticide legal, as it does not prove that infants lack a natural right to continue living, and to be free of being killed by others.
But in your hypothetical, as in real life, once born, a newborn can be cared for by others and can be given up for adoption, a fact that your hypothetical ignores.
Just as there is no way to remove a non-viable embryo or fetus without killing it, which makes it unlike refusing to donate blood or donate a kidney to save a person’s life (even when the other person dies as a result), it’s also not analogous to infanticide, because others can care for a newborn, whereas others cannot gestate the embryo/fetus once implanted.
The possibility of someone else gestating the embryo makes me wonder: do you feel the same way about people who discard frozen IVF embryos as you do about people who have abortions? I know that you said “I do not favor discarding embryos as they are, in my view, human persons. Thus, I believe every effort should be made to allow them to develop. What that looks in reality would be an interesting discussion,” but you stopped short of saying that you believe that it should be illegal to discard IVF embryos. I’m raising this because in theory, someone else could gestate the embryo (in fact, couples sometimes do donate their unused IVF embryos to other couples). Would you favor legally requiring the couple that created the embryo to either gestate it or donate it to someone who wants to gestate it, as we do with newborns (either raise it, or give it up for adoption)?
If there were a way to transplant an embryo from the uterus of a person who doesn’t consent to carrying the pregnancy to term into the uterus of a person does consent (or into a functioning artificial uterus), that would solve the abortion problem AFAIC.
Back to whether consent to sex is consent to bringing a pregnancy to term …
It’s a fact that abortions are possible, so it seems unproductive to shift to a hypothetical where they aren’t possible. I’d previously given you a lot of examples of situations where consent to starting a process is not consent to completing that process (e.g., consent to starting the platelet donation process is not consent to completing the donation, consent to starting a college major is not consent to completing that major). You’ve made no argument for why consent to the risk of becoming pregnant *is* consent to bringing the pregnancy to term, unlike all the other situations where consent can be withdrawn after being initially given. I accept that you generally believe it *should be*, though even there, you have exceptions (e.g., if there’s a risk to the mother’s life, and perhaps if the pregnancy occurred via rape). As best I can tell, you’re reasoning from the belief that the embryo has a right to life that takes precedence over consent to using the mother’s uterus, rather than making an argument about consent itself. In fact, I’m hard-pressed to think of a situation where consent can’t be withdrawn partway through some process, unless there’s a legal contract in place that requires continuation or it’s a situation where consent stops playing a role (e.g., if you consent to jumping out of an airplane, you can’t withdraw consent partway through the fall — gravity simply isn’t subject to consent).
Anon –
But in your hypothetical, as in real life, once born, a newborn can be cared for by others and can be given up for adoption, a fact that your hypothetical ignores.
It is in the nature of hypotheticals to ignore real life. Their purpose is to illustrate a discrete point. My hypothetical is valid for its purpose: to clarify why I think your argument is circular. It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that your argument is that, because abortion is legal, women who consent to sex don’t consent to bringing the embryo/fetus to full term, since they’re aware at the time of sex that they can obtain an abortion, and because they don’t give such consent, it’s right that they should be able to abort.
So . . . I’m not denying that a woman may consent to sex without consenting to forego an abortion. I’m saying that fact is not material to the question we’re discussing, which is whether an embryo/fetus has a natural right not to be killed. If I stated something different before, I now retract it. It’s the killing of the fetus/embryo that distinguishes this case from others where consent is withdrawn partway through. Withdrawing consent to platelet donation or a course of studies in college are different in that respect. None of those examples involve actively killing a human being. (You may not agree with the term “human being” – I’m using it because I believe it’s a person but you don’t, but isn’t it a “being”? If not, kindly propose a term acceptable to you.)
As for frozen embryos: I will get to that eventually. If I’m honest, the whole area of killing human beings that are in such an early state of development is murkier to me than killing a first or second trimester fetus where the body must be killed in some way (e.g., crushing the skull, dismembering the body, chemically burning, etc.). It is in the latter instances that the issue is joined most visibly in society – e.g., with abortion clinics and the protesters outside. I’d like to concentrate on those for a while and then get back to the murkier area later. Am I trying to avoid the hard cases? No. But I think the issue is in starkest relief in the case of abortions that happen at abortion clinics and hospitals. It’s in those cases that one can see an actual human body that has been dismembered, crushed, or burned, and that happen with a great deal of frequency in society. It seems to me that you don’t consider anything wrong with that as long as the fetus does not have what you’ve termed a “functioning brain.” Is that correct, and if not, what do you think is wrong with it?
“Think about the tens of millions of human beings who have been aborted; how many artists, educators, humanitarians, scientists, healers, and statesmen are we missing? It must be a great deal. While I’m not saying people who favor abortion on demand are happy about that, I think we can all agree it is a great loss to humanity,” I don’t think of it as a loss.
But suppose Beethoven or Mozart had been aborted before they had a functioning brain. Wouldn’t that be a loss to humanity?
oldmanfromkansas,
Again, I think it’s useful to distinguish between T/F claims and claims that aren’t T/F (values, opinions, …). It’s my opinion that consent to sex isn’t consent to bringing a pregnancy to term, and it’s my opinion that elective abortions should be legal up to ~22 weeks and generally illegal after (with the exceptions I’d previously specified), even if the pregnant person doesn’t consent after 22 weeks. That is, I think the question of consent and the question of legality are distinct despite intersecting. Prior to the initiation of brainwave activity, I think that a lack of consent should mean that a pregnant person can choose a legal abortion, whereas after that brain activity starts, I think that a lack of consent generally should not enable a legal abortion: the mother had already had long enough to abort legally, and if she doesn’t want to remain pregnant at that point, then at most it should result in inducing labor and preterm delivery, not abortion.
That something is legal does not make it right; that something is illegal does not make it wrong. Right/wrong are distinct from legal/illegal, even though there’s significant intersection. For example, it used to be legal for men to rape their wives; it wasn’t considered rape. I’d say that it was wrong when it was legal just as it’s wrong now that it’s illegal. It’s often wrong to lie, but I don’t think that most lies should be illegal. It’s illegal to jaywalk but I often don’t think it’s wrong (as long as it doesn’t interfere with traffic). Etc.
Even if abortion were always illegal, I think that consent to sex wouldn’t be consent to bringing the pregnancy to term. In that setting, the woman would be forced to bring the pregnancy to term against her consent, just like men used to be able to legally have sex with their wives against their consent, and just as my opinion is that after ~22 weeks, a woman should no longer be able to have a legal abortion (with exceptions) even if she wants to withdraw consent at that point.
I don’t know if it’s helpful, but consider the case of conjoined twins (born living, two functioning brains). I consider them to be 2 people, even though they’re a single organism. I’d consider it immoral and want it to be illegal to cut off one of the twins, killing it and enabling the other one to live more normally. In contrast, suppose a newborn was born with extra limbs, or even a second skull without a second functioning brain: in that case, I wouldn’t consider it to be twins, only extra limbs, and I wouldn’t object to doctors operating to cut off the extra limbs (as long as it didn’t kill the newborn). A brain with brainwaves is really central in my thinking. It’s why I don’t object to beating heart organ donation after brain death, where doctors kill the body by removing its organs: I think the person has already died (because brain death occurred), even if the body is being kept alive. Or, consider the case of a newborn that’s a genetic chimera but otherwise develops normally (which may be more common than previously known): I consider that a single person, even though there are genetically distinct cell lines in his/her body, again because there’s just 1 functioning brain.
Is that clearer? Again, for me, the dividing line for legal abortions is generally around earliest viability, which generally coincides with initiation of fetal brainwaves. That’s the dividing line for me, and the question of consent is distinct from — though overlapping with — the question of legal abortion. So I don’t see it as circular.
That does clear things up, but in doing so I now believe that focusing on what the mother consented to at the time of sex is a red herring because both you and I believe that is not the controlling factor. From what you have said, it seems to me you’re saying that the mother’s withdrawal of her willingness to bing the baby to term at any time prior to about 22 weeks is determinative.
That something is legal does not make it right; that something is illegal does not make it wrong.
Agreed.
A brain with brainwaves is really central in my thinking.
When does the fetus start having brain waves? And why are such waves so important to personhood if a rudimentary brain and other organs already exist? Maybe because of this:
I don’t object to beating heart organ donation after brain death, where doctors kill the body by removing its organs: I think the person has already died (because brain death occurred), even if the body is being kept alive.
Nor do I object. The person has already lived a life and will not be coming back to us no matter the medical intervention. The same can’t be said of a fetus at say 21 weeks who is allowed to develop naturally.
Question – you say: Again, for me, the dividing line for legal abortions is generally around earliest viability, which generally coincides with initiation of fetal brainwaves.
But doesn’t viability outside the womb depend on the current state of the art in medical technology, which improves over time? So now it is 22 weeks, but in future it might be 19 weeks. So . . . why should personhood dependent on an external factor such as the current state of the art in medical technology?
“But suppose Beethoven or Mozart had been aborted before they had a functioning brain. Wouldn’t that be a loss to humanity?”
First, many more embryos die of natural causes than from elective abortions, so if that’s your reasoning, you’d be even more concerned with the larger numerical loss from failure to implant / miscarriage, and you’d want there to be a great deal invested in preventing natural pregnancy loss because of the loss of future Mozarts.
Personally, I don’t assume that anyone is born already being a musical prodigy, and I’m more concerned about what we lose globally among those who are born — from poverty (e.g., newborns are born malnourished, many people can’t afford to study music at all because they’re trying to get enough to eat), from poor education, etc. — than about what might be lost from abortion. My thoughts about this are influenced by having worked or traveled in very poor countries.
. . . you’d be even more concerned with the larger numerical loss from failure to implant / miscarriage, and you’d want there to be a great deal invested in preventing natural pregnancy loss because of the loss of future Mozarts.
That’s a fair point, and it is a loss, especially to couples that are trying unsuccessfully to conceive (I speak from experience – meaning friends of ours). But in my view it’s easier to accept where no human has purposely killed them. Since I have no say in any such monetary investments, it’s not something I think about very much.
To be more precise, I could go on and on about how I think the trillions America has spent on pointless wars (including our proxy war with Russia currently taking place in Ukraine), could be better spent on needs here at home, such as the poor people in East Palestine, Ohio, people of limited means who could use help in any number of areas, and medical research. But that would distract from our current discussion.
“doesn’t viability outside the womb depend on the current state of the art in medical technology, which improves over time? So now it is 22 weeks, but in future it might be 19 weeks. So . . . why should personhood dependent on an external factor such as the current state of the art in medical technology?”
I don’t think that personhood begins until birth.
It’s not that a fetus becomes a person when brain waives start, only that that’s the moral dividing line for me for when elective abortions are/aren’t acceptable. Frontal cortex brainwaves start towards the end of the second trimester.
Unless they invent an artificial womb, I doubt that they’re going to be able to decrease the state at which viability starts by much beyond what they’ve already accomplished (again, viability is a state, not an age — some fetuses are viable at 22 weeks, but many are not, and some never become viable). And if they invent an artificial womb and a means of transplantation, that should solve the issue, since the woman would not be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will.
. . . I’m more concerned about what we lose globally among those who are born — from poverty (e.g., newborns are born malnourished, many people can’t afford to study music at all because they’re trying to get enough to eat), from poor education, etc. — than about what might be lost from abortion.
Understood. I’m concerned about both.
And that extends to pregnant women who feel they have to abort for financial reasons but would otherwise have wanted to keep their baby, as well as women who are pressured into abortion by their boyfriend or their relatives, women who abort because they aren’t fully informed about their choices including where help is available and the health risks of abortion, and women who have aborted and are now filled with remorse and having to deal with the health effects of having aborted. It also extends to couples who can’t conceive and want to adopt but are finding it overly difficult to find an adoptable baby.
As for the adverse mental health effects of abortion on the mother, see Judge Jones’s concurrence in McCorvey v. Hill (link below). The relevant paragraph starts with “McCorvey presented evidence . . ..”
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-5th-circuit/1344628.html
oldmanfromkansas,
Re: “the health risks of abortion,” abortions are generally safer than pregnancy and childbirth.
Re: “As for the adverse mental health effects of abortion on the mother, see Judge Jones’s concurrence in McCorvey v. Hill (link below),” the ruling only makes a claim but doesn’t cite any studies. Some women regret having had an abortion and other women feel relieved. I’m not sure what your point is here; people regret all sorts of choices in their lives, but that doesn’t mean that those choices should be illegal. I hope that people’s choices are informed, but there are also things that we cannot know about how we’ll feel about a choice 10 years later.
I wish everyone had enough money to live on and enough help taking care of their kids, but that is not the case. I wish that all pregnancies were risk-free, but that is not the case. I wish fetuses never developed serious health problems, but that is not the case. I wish women were never raped, but that is not the case. … I believe that prior to viability (and sometimes afterwards), it should be up to the pregnant woman or girl to make a choice for herself (often in consultation with trusted others), knowing all of the particulars of her life and pregnancy.
Here is an example of a man discussing his and his wife’s difficult choice to have an abortion with a wanted pregnancy (though ultimately the fetus died in utero before the abortion):
https://twitter.com/wtadler/status/1521167627833552899
You would have denied them that option. I would not.
“abortions are generally safer than pregnancy and childbirth”
That statement is deceptive, and deception is your game.
The earlier in the pregnancy, the safer the abortion. 8 weeks is safer than 12, and safer than your 22 weeks. Will you compare your 22 weeks and older with pregnancy? Include a few other things needed when dealing with this type of comparison.
The risks of pregnancy are higher under certain circumstances, and many women run the risk rather than have a permitted abortion. We need to compare abortions against healthy pregnancies. You are shallow and don’t care about accuracy. One also has to recognize that desired pregnancies following abortion have an increased mortality rate. Of course, you know nothing of that either, so you exclude those deaths from your statistics.
You leave out a lot of other things as well. You don’t care about the child, the mother, or society. All you care about is your ideology.
abortions are generally safer than pregnancy and childbirth
Not for the child. And I doubt that a procedure in which pregnancy is interrupted by a violent killing of the unborn is safer than the natural course of childbirth. That’s the kind of statistic that depends on what the specific problems of the pregnancy are, and what kind of prenatal care the mother has who brings the child to term. It is meaningless in the abstract.
the ruling only makes a claim but doesn’t cite any studies
The ruling cites to over 1,000 affidavits of women who tell their first-hand stories.
I’m not sure what your point is here; people regret all sorts of choices in their lives, but that doesn’t mean that those choices should be illegal.
I’m not arguing legality. My point was to say what I was concerned about. Again, I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m hoping we can learn from each other.
More generally, it seems to me a reproductive system, by its very definition, is involved in creating a new life. That new life is snuffed out, often violently and barbarically, by abortion. As best I can tell you don’t have any significant qualms about such a violent procedure as long as there are no brain waves in the life being killed, because you define personhood in terms of the presence of brain waves. But it is always a good idea to ask ourselves: “What if I’m wrong?”
Here is an example of a man discussing his and his wife’s difficult choice to have an abortion with a wanted pregnancy (though ultimately the fetus died in utero before the abortion).
I don’t deny that’s a heart-wrenching story. But it seems to me an easy out to concentrate only on the fraction of abortions which represent the “hard cases,” such as this type of fetal abnormality . . . or the case of rape. The majority of elective abortions are not in the hard-cases category. Women want, or more likely are pressured, to abort for financial and social-stigma reasons, or they are driven by an individualistic ideology which elevates freedom from childbearing as the supreme value. In such cases, the most vulnerable party, the party with the most to lose – the child – is left out of the equation. I find it hard to describe a society as “civilized” where that’s an a common and accepted practice.
“Not for the child.”
But you weren’t talking about the fetus in what I quoted / was responding to. You were talking about “women who … aren’t fully informed about … the health risks of abortion”
“And I doubt that a procedure in which pregnancy is interrupted by a violent killing of the unborn is safer than the natural course of childbirth.”
You can doubt it all you want, but maternal mortality and morbidity (i.e., complications not resulting in death) are monitored by the CDC. See, for example, the data here:
Raymond, E. G., & Grimes, D. A. (2012). The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States. Obstetrics & gynecology, 119(2 Part 1), 215-219.
http://unmfamilyplanning.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/119312553/Raymond%2520et%2520al-Comparative%2520Safety.pdf
“It is meaningless in the abstract.”
It isn’t. Comprehensive studies are not meaningless. Pregnancy and childbirth are more likely to lead to complications or death for the woman than abortions are. Obviously the outcome for the embryo/fetus is always death in abortion.
“The ruling cites to over 1,000 affidavits of women who tell their first-hand stories.”
Which is not a random or representative sample of the millions of women and girls who’ve had abortions in the U.S. There are multiple research studies that explore women’s feelings over time about their choice to have an abortion. The most common feeling is relief, and although some women later regret their choice, most continue to feel that they made the right decision.
“As best I can tell you don’t have any significant qualms about such a violent procedure as long as there are no brain waves in the life being killed, because you define personhood in terms of the presence of brain waves. But it is always a good idea to ask ourselves: “What if I’m wrong?””
Again: I don’t consider a fetus to be a person even after frontal cortex brain waves appear. For me, both natural law and legal personhood begins at birth.
What is your answer when you ask yourself “What if I’m wrong?”
My own answer is that this is not a T/F issue, but is instead a matter of opinion, values, etc., where people either have shared views or not-shared views. If my views were different, there is no outcome other than: I’d have different views and presumably would have different reasons for them. Are you looking for some other kind of response?
“Women want, or more likely are pressured, to abort for financial and social-stigma reasons, or they are driven by an individualistic ideology which elevates freedom from childbearing as the supreme value.”
CDC data show that ~60% of women/girls who have abortions are already mothers, and half of them have two or more children. Many who are not mothers go on to have children later.
Women/girls have abortions for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to the ones you list. An example of a study looking at the diverse reasons: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1472-6874-13-29
“it seems to me an easy out to concentrate only on the fraction of abortions which represent the “hard cases,” such as this type of fetal abnormality . . . or the case of rape.”
But I haven’t been concentrating on them, only saying that I also won’t ignore them.
“the most vulnerable party, the party with the most to lose – the child – is left out of the equation.”
It has no capacity to make a decision. There is no way for it to be involved itself. Nor do I have reason to think that women/girls who are debating this decision fail to think about the person their fetus might become if they don’t have an abortion.
Anon – thanks for all the cites. It seems you might be a medical doctor, is that right?
Given my schedule it’ll take me some time to look into them and any other related information that’s out there. In the meantime, though, I’m curious: in this day and age with current state of medicine, what is the real danger of carrying a pregnancy to term, if it’s not already a pregnancy that has serious problems? I ask because I don’t think you’d claim most elective abortions are for pregnancies that have serious medical problems, right?
Second, NIH says the fetal heartbeat starts “at the end of the fourth week,” i.e., 28 days (quoted from source linked below). This means that most elective abortions stop a beating heart, right?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279166/
Is your focus on brain waves as the dividing line any more objectively reasonable than another person’s focus on the presence of a heartbeat as the dividing line? IOW, is the focus on brainwaves fundamentally a “you” thing, or is there some kind of consensus by some scientific body that that’s where the dividing line should be?
In response to me saying, “the most vulnerable party, the party with the most to lose – the child – is left out of the equation,” you replied: It has no capacity to make a decision. There is no way for it to be involved itself. I’m not seeing how that’s relevant, and perhaps you could help me understand. A newborn also has no capacity to make a decision or to involve itself, but it still has the most to lose from a parental decision to kill it. But its inability to make decisions or be involved in the parent’s decision doesn’t change the fundamental nature of such a decision. (And that’s not just a hypothetical – societies have existed in the past where infanticide was a widespread and accepted practice.)
oldmanfromkansas,
“thanks for all the cites.”
You’re welcome.
“It seems you might be a medical doctor, is that right?”
No, I thought about going to med school when I was young, but ended up as a researcher in a different STEMM field.
“what is the real danger of carrying a pregnancy to term, if it’s not already a pregnancy that has serious problems? I ask because I don’t think you’d claim most elective abortions are for pregnancies that have serious medical problems, right?”
I don’t claim that most abortions are for serious medical problems. I don’t know how to assess which problems you’d consider “serious.” In one study I read, about 1/4 of women/girls who considered getting abortions said that either their own health or the fetus’s health played a role, but only 7% said it was the most important consideration (https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives).
“NIH says the fetal heartbeat starts “at the end of the fourth week,” i.e., 28 days (quoted from source linked below). This means that most elective abortions stop a beating heart, right?”
To be clear, although you linked to a publication on the NIH’s PubMed Central (PMC) website, it’s not an NIH publication; PMC gathers medical publications globally, sometimes just the abstract and sometimes the entire article (depends on what the publisher allows). That article was written by doctors in Italy. They weren’t distinguishing between heart cells that beat in unison (which is what occurs at 4 weeks) and a four-chambered heart (which takes a few more weeks to develop), because the entire article focuses on the development of the heart. But to answer your question, yes, most elective abortions stop either heart cells or a heart from beating.
“Is your focus on brain waves as the dividing line any more objectively reasonable than another person’s focus on the presence of a heartbeat as the dividing line?”
No. It’s simply what’s important to me personally. But I doubt that I’m alone in this. It used to be that brain death wasn’t considered legal death, but now it is, and people regularly talk about conjoined twins as “twins” if there are 2 functioning brains even if there’s only 1 heart, whereas someone with 2 hearts is not thought of as two people. Brains are where are personalities reside, our ability to think, our emotions.
“its inability to make decisions or be involved in the parent’s decision doesn’t change the fundamental nature of such a decision.”
Agreed.
Anon – another question I’d like your thoughts on. You’ve expressed that it’s involuntary servitude for a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will. If, on the other hand, she decides to carry it to term against the father’s will, can the father correctly argue it’s involuntary servitude to have to pay child support for 18 years?
I generally don’t consider it involuntary servitude when the state takes a fraction of someone’s income. This occurs with taxes. I do think it’s a challenge when one parent wants to give the child up for adoption and the other doesn’t, and I haven’t thought much about it. It also cuts both ways: the mother might want to give the child up for adoption and the father might not, though that’s less common than vice versa. But I think this is distinct from the physical labor of being pregnant, which places significant physical demands on the woman’s/girl’s body.
I generally don’t consider it involuntary servitude when the state takes a fraction of someone’s income. This occurs with taxes. . . . But I think this is distinct from the physical labor of being pregnant . . .
There is certainly a difference between (a) having to work for money, then having to give that money up involuntarily, and (b) having to carry a baby to term. But I’m not all that persuaded by the argument based on fractions. If the fraction is 1/8, then the father can say 7 hours of work per day is for his own remuneration, and one hour is involuntary servitude. Even one hour of involuntary servitude per day is illegal under the 13th Amendment. Taxes are different: in theory at least, they are paid to the government in return for things the government does for the taxpayer.
The garage that collapsed in NYC was certified safe. I am not aiming at the use of the drug, yes or no, but rather pointing out how specious your comments are.
“but rather pointing out how
speciousAccurate your comments are” (try using a thesaurus to get your word choice close.To Wally.
The court and law and government interfere between doctors and their patients all the time. Simply by deciding what insurance covers interferes with patient care. If you’re rich there is less interference but if you’re not then no insurance coverage means no treatment. Medicare is run by the government and has a panel that decides what is medically efficacious or not. If not determined to be efficacious then it is decreed as “experimental” and not covered by Medicare. Private insurers sometimes make opposing decisions and what Medicare has decided as experimental, a private insurer may decide to cover any way. Comparing mifepristone to viagra is total nonsense as viagra has no bearing on medical abortion. It is used to treat a medical problem just like birth control pills are often used to treat medical conditions like uncontrolled bleeding and to regulate periods. If you really want to find out how safe viagra is then take some nitroglycerin or long acting nitrate at the same time. The Er doctors will be lucky to find a a blood pressure on you for a significant amount of time. You might even survive.
Or are you alluding to the use of viagra in the treatment of primary pulmonary hypertension.
Comparing viagra to abortion is a long time marriage put together by abortion activists to somehow attack men because they don’t need abortions even though the uses of the drugs are totally different.
Remedial lesson of the day-One drug (in its common use) helps to accomplish intercourse for those that are impaired. The other drug is used to terminate a pregnancy (ie:killing a fetus). Not the same thing in any universe I am aware of..
As a physician I don’t support capitol punishment and I don’t support fetus killing either.
I do support birth control for all women irrespective. The Affordable Care Act could have accomplished that by setting up a separate means to fund birth control for all women without going through mandating insurers. That would have removed all the contention over religious views. It was a fight they never would have had to deal with.
For a bit of perspective, without insurance, one can buy birth control pills for as little as one or two cups of Starbucks coffee.
You sir drink expensive coffee: https://www.goodrx.com/conditions/abortion/medication-abortion-pill-cost
Medication abortion costs $500 on average according to GoodRX. Where are you getting these $5 pills?
“For a bit of perspective, without insurance, one can buy ***birth control pills*** for as little as one or two cups of Starbucks coffee.”
That was in response to: “The Affordable Care Act could have accomplished that by setting up a separate means to fund ***birth control*** for all women without going through mandating insurers. “
I advise you to have another check your medications before you take them.
What is the purpose of comparing abortion pills to Starbucks coffee without considering the total cost?
That is like saying the cost of getting a dog is the $50 adoption fee. Or, babies are free!
Is the intent to deceive by willful omission of the context?
In many states, doctors appointments are mandated. The cost (with or without insurance) of those visits is a required expense…
“What is the purpose of comparing abortion pills to Starbucks coffee “
It puts things into perspective when considering the need for funding. Wasn’t that clear? [“For a bit of perspective, without insurance, one can buy birth control pills for as little as one or two cups of Starbucks coffee.”]
“In many states, doctors appointments are mandated. The cost (with or without insurance) of those visits is a required expense”
If there is funding the doctors visits still apply. Did you forget that? The doctors visit is to get the Rx not to pay for it.
The majority 7 are likely thinking that a re-review within FDA, not judicial fiat, is the proper way to resolve this controversy. FDA can simply review post-market Safety and Efficacy of the latest approved methodology, no shortcuts, and when the merits phase of the lawsuit comes up, the original claims will be dismissed as moot.
I also sense that except for Alito and Thomas, there is a new resolve to stop rewarding plaintiffs who seek to legislate policy from the bench. This attempt was particularly odious in that the claim of harm was pretextual — the plaintiffs patently defrauded the District Court in pretending to be concerned for the health of pregnant women who wish to abort. So, filing on a pretext undercut their case.
If the Right doesn’t want to be chopped into pieces, state by state, court case by court case, it needs to come up with a national compromise on abortion to put the issue to bed. Sadly, the Republicans aren’t smart enough to do that. And why would they be? Led by McConnell and McCarthy? Hacks from the word go…McCarthy rolled the Freedom Caucus but good.
You got all that from a non-merits decision? Wow.
In a lecture at the private catholic research University of Notre Dame, IN on 9/30/21, SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito addressed courts “shadow docket” decission that allowed a Texas law banning abortions after about six weeks to go into effect:
He added: “The catchy and sinister term ‘shadow docket’ has been used to portray the court as having been captured by a dangerous cabal that resorts to sneaky and improper methods to get its way. And this portrayal feeds unprecedented efforts to intimidate the court or damage it as an independent institution.”
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/30/1042051134/justice-alito-calls-criticism-of-the-shadow-docket-silly-and-misleading
The court lifted the stay until the lower court lifts it or, if the lower court decision goes against the FDA, the Supreme Court itself denies cert or resolves the matter on appeal. This means that for the stay to take effect again, the Supreme Court will have to decide to allow it to do so, either through cert denial or a decision. Is this unusual?
The court granted the stay until the Fifth Circuit rules and, if cert is sought, SCOTUS either denies cert or rules on the case. Why do you say it was lifted? You must have misread the opinion.
By lifting the stay I meant removing the restriction on the application of the 2016 and subsequent decisions. As I understand the situation, even if the 5th Circuit finds against the FDA, the 2016 and subsequent decisions will remain fully in effect unless and until the Supreme Court denies cert or itself decides against the FDA. Is this not correct?
As the opinion says, “The applications for stays presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court are granted. The April 7, 2023 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, case No. 2:22–cv–223, is stayed pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.”
Yes, “even if the 5th Circuit finds against the FDA, the 2016 and subsequent decisions will remain fully in effect unless and until the Supreme Court denies cert or itself decides against the FDA,” but that’s because the stays are *granted*, not *lifted*.
Good. The decision by the Texas judge has no merit. This drug is 10x safer than vigra. Keep the government out of decisions made by patients and their doctors.
These drugs are not “safe” in the sense they have no detrimental effects. The “medical abortion” is a quadruple dose of the hormone used in birth control, which has been shown to have a long-lasting impact on the “reproductive health” of those who use it. No prescription is necessary, and the pills are typically ordered by mail. You should read up on how they work, and ask yourself if this is an ordeal you’d wish your wife, sister, or daughter to undergo.
Paternalistic and ignorant to the point of embarrassment. Ask your wife, sister, or daughter what they want to do.
Do you have a citation to a peer reviewed article? A quick Google search from one the nation’s top medical schools suggests entirely the opposite: https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/aspiration-versus-medication-abortion
UCSF: “There is no evidence that medication abortion affects a person’s ability to have a baby in the future.”
But I would love to review counter evidence if you have it.
“Keep the government out of decisions made by patients and their doctors.”
I guess that means you are in favor of ending ObamaCare.
Choose one:
1)Yes
2)No
3)Hypocrite
But aren’t 2 and 3 the same?
Thanks Professor. Hearing the news last night I thought I understood that the Court — as it should have — just delayed the day when it would likely have to look at this issue calmly and deliberatively with everyone having his or her say openly. But now you are saying that this and many other such issues are really settled for good in this slapdash two-week rush to judgement process.
Separately – as to the issue itself — if it turns out that in 2024 or 2025 or whenever this case reaches it, SCOTUS finds FDA erred procedurally in how it increased the time period during which the child could be murdered in this way from 7 weeks to 10 weeks, it would seem that the FDA could then just republish its 2016 recommendation and give people the 90 days or whatever the law requires to comment and then reissue its “warning label” and we’d be back to the same place. In fact, why couldn’t the FDA simply do that Monday. Why wait?
The problem is that the testing methodology was flawed – something orders of magnitude worse than an administrative “error.”
Its safety has been confirmed in multiple studies.
If testing procedure was the problem, Ms Addams, same thing as I said above. Re run the tests. Then, assuming the drug passes, re-issue the warning label for 10 weeks
Thank you! Sooo sad for the babies being killed, and for the mothers in every way, for once pregnant, a woman is a mother forever, whether her child lives or dies.
God bless, C-Marie