Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

Political backlash to the Alabama ruling is already starting. @AroundTheWorld better tell your think tank to reign in the zealots.

 

I think the vast majority of pro-lifer conservatives are (just my dumb opinion):
- pro-IVF
- pro-choice for certain exceptions like life AND serious health of mother (to-be-decided by the doctor).

But through politics and policy we get no IVF and no exceptions in many places. I think there's enough pressure among themselves to get the IVF thing fixed legislatively in Alabama, but I agree with your assesssment of the hardcore logic. The true logical extension of hardcore pro-lifers is that IVF disposal of unsused fertilized eggs outside the womb is abortion in a way. I think the true nutty hardcores are at least more consistent than the selective pro-lifers.

 

This is the problem with purity of thought especially in politics. It will push people to extreme positions.

 

I agree that most anti-abortion voters probably have no problem with IVF. They have family and friends who have used IVF to conceive. Abortion is an emotionally visceral issue for them and that's why it's been so successful. Combine that emotion with religious justification and you've got a potent motivator for single-issue voting.

But these people aren't driving the ideological train. The pastors and publishers of anti-abortion voting guides are and they've been very consistent that "life begins at conception" and they are "pro-life". This stance against embryo disposal is totally in-line with what they've been saying for years. It was a "quiet part" that they knew they couldn't say out loud until Roe was overturned, but now they feel emboldened to say it. The scary thing is equating abortion with murder; if it's murder, then surely you support punishing the "murderer". That's an unpopular opinion, but it's just as consistent as saying that IVF embryos are full-blown children in their eyes.

Sloganeering is fine for most people, but there are always true believers behind the slogans.

 

I’m sure it will all die down once they realize Biden is old.

 

House GOP rushes to distance from Alabama IVF ruling


Rep. Nancy Mace. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images.

House Republicans are quickly pushing back on an Alabama Supreme Court ruling restricting access to fertility treatments, with one GOP lawmaker already planning a legislative response, Axios has learned.

Why it matters: Reproductive health care has been the central issue for House Democrats as they try to win back GOP-held suburban swing districts.

• "We should do everything we can to protect IVF for women everywhere," Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) told Axios. "We are currently drafting a resolution to express our sentiment and then looking at legislative options."
• Mace has variably criticized and supported her party's pro-life positions, often warning that overly strict policies will cost the GOP key elections.

What they’re saying: House Republicans from districts President Biden won in 2020 also pushed back.

• Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) said in a statement to Axios the ruling “goes too far,” while Rep. Anthony D’Esposito (R-N.Y.) said it will “rob countless Americans of the joys of family life.”
• Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) told Axios he wants to "give those who want to be moms and dads that opportunity. Therefore, I do not support restrictions on IVF."
• "I'm troubled by and oppose the ruling. I support women and families who choose IVF to bring life into this world. They have my love and respect," said Rep. Marc Molinaro (R-N.Y.).

Zoom in: The Alabama Supreme Court ruled late last week that frozen embryos created through in vitro fertilization are legally considered children.

• That has resulted in Alabama clinics pausing IVF treatments out of concern that doctors or patients could face potential criminal prosecution.

State of play: Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.) introduced legislation to provide a federal right to IVF after the Supreme Court's ruling overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022.

• "Now is the time for Congress to pass my Access to Family Building Act and establish a statutory right to access IVF," Duckworth said in a statement after the Alabama ruling.

What we're hearing: A House Republican, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said they will be "curious to see who will support such efforts" to preserve IVF access.

• The lawmaker added that Republicans from swing districts "have to, right...?"

 

Even though I think the hardcores will push to keep this correct Alabama ruling based on Alabama precedent the way it is, most of MAGA isn't that principled. I guess that there will be enough Republicans in Alabama who will push back against the pure pro-lifers, and this law will change soon to allow for IVF clinics not to get sued.

 

A sternly written memo is total BS.

The House should pass a bill protecting IVF (and contraception while they are at it). That bill will leave a skid mark in the Senate on its way to the President's desk.

If signed into law, I am sure within no time someone will challenge the law in the west Texas federal court that appears to be the fast track to the SCOTUS ... giving the SCOTUS yet another chance to legislate from the bench on right to life issues.

 

life without legal protection, and
life with legal protection

doozy

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/22/1233270447/alabama-lawmakers-move-to-protect-ivf-treatment

Melson, who is also a medical doctor, says his proposal would make clear that "a human egg that is fertilized in vitro shall be considered a potential life," but should not be legally considered a human life until it is implanted in a uterus."

Alabama Democrats have introduced a bill that also makes it clear that an embryo outside a womb would not be considered a human child, but they are in the minority in the state legislature.

Melson, a Republican, hopes his legislation will pass quickly so that Alabama's IVF clinics can continue to operate.

 

So hypocritical and anti-Christ-ian. Basically, legislating the following morality: maximize embryos and possible pregnancies, minimize freedom for women, minimize care for mothers and babies who are actually born and draw breathe on their own. (Alabama ranks top five in woman's mortality rate during birth and child poverty, for instance -- nice combo there, bubbas.)

 

republicans now going after the pill and "recreational sex"...

 

The irony for me is that I find IVF to be more ethically dubious than abortion. I won't be too sad to see it go.

 

Here's one of the current influential voices on the right that I was talking about earlier. Rufo drives the train for a lot of discourse around DEI, anti-woke, homeless, and crime hysteria. If he's signaling an anti-birth control stance this early in the game, be certain that he's not the only right wing tastemaker who believes this.

The further down the rabbit hole these people go, the more I'm convinced that they really do want to control women's lives and force a return to their ideal 1950s social structure without supporting any of the underlying economic conditions that made the 1950s possible.

 

What those that currently control the GOP really want is pretty well laid out and not a mystery. They hope to regain control of the white house to power a stronger push for that 'social structure' but in an even more extreme way.

Trump allies prepare to infuse ‘Christian nationalism’ in second administration - POLITICO
Project 2025 - Wikipedia

 

This dude is a friggin moron

 

How far are we from viable artificial wombs?

This discussion would be even difficult to navigate if human embryos can successfully grow to birth outside of a human body.

 

It would be a Brave New World..

 

The people in AL voted for this guy over Doug Jones...

 

Why is that, if you don't mind