Gilead Is Real: The War On Abortion And Women's Rights 2

[Alisamer]

So a little clarification. In 11 states private insurance is not allowed to cover elective abortion, whether that insurance is bought on the healthcare marketplace or not. So no coverage there.

In marketplace plans, 25 states ban abortion coverage. Some allow it in cases of rape, incest, or risk to the life of the mother. Some only allow it in cases of danger to the life of the mother. In Tennessee and Louisiana marketplace plans are not allowed to cover abortion for any reason at all.

Six states require insurance to cover abortion. In the remaining states it’s up to the insurance providers to choose, but if marketplace plans do cover it they must add an additional charge of at least 1 dollar to the premiums, the additional charge cannot be covered by subsidies, and must be held in a separate account for abortion coverage.

https://www.healthinsurance.org/faqs/do-health-insurance-plans-in-acas-exchanges-cover-abortion/

For Medicaid:

33 states and the District of Columbia follow the federal standard and provide abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape and incest.

4 of these states also provide state funds for abortions in cases of fetal impairment.

4 of these states also provide state funds for abortions that are necessary to prevent grave, long-lasting damage to the person's physical health.

1 state provides abortions only in cases of life endangerment, in apparent violation of the federal standard.

16 states have a policy that directs Medicaid to pay for all or most medically necessary abortions.

31 million+ Americans have either Marketplace plans or Medicaid, based on the info I found. Plus those with private non marketplace plans in the 11 states that ban insurance from covering elective abortion. 
 

It is true that not everyone would struggle to pay for an abortion, the people most likely to struggle are those who are lower income, working part time, working for smaller businesses, working as a contractor, etc. 

And even the best insurance still has complicated technicalities that have to be followed as far as networks, pre-approvals, required referrals, etc.

I’m thinking a mom working two part time jobs even in a state where abortion coverage is available might struggle to jump through the hoops and then stay on top of insurance to make sure everything is paid correctly. On top of the issues with getting time off, transportation, etc. especially since many states have weird requirements like multiple appointments, ultrasounds, waiting periods between the initial visit and the actual abortion procedure, etc. especially when the clinic might be hours away. 

[byzant]

Totally comfortable in speaking in absolutes like- everyone has the basic human right to health care and a society that denies that to their most vulnerable- or makes people go bankrupt for the crime of being ill- is abhorrent. Also to bring it back to the topic that every woman has the right to make choices about her body regardless of her means or luck in finding a job. 

The fact these are seen as " extreme statements" "absolutes" or "name calling" is genuinely a heart breaking reflection on what their society has said is normal 

[meep]

Yes I'm honestly so exhausted at people -especially other women - who aren't brave enough to step up and call it like it is, which is the absolute BARE MINIMUM you should be doing alongside voting. The highest court in the land just said you do not on a federal level have the right over your own body. Only at the state level if you happen to be a lucky one to live in a special state! And that's only for now. If this doesn't make people angry and disgusted, I have no hope for this country. Zero. Gone. Dusted and over with. A complacent population waiting for the enemy to strike. *sigh* If that's a "hot take", consider me a radical then as I sob in pity for you. 🤷‍♀️

[nelliebelle1197]

4 hours ago, Manda said:

The absolutes are not helpful.  Calling people names doesn't help either.  

I find this especially rich from you towards someone like @nausicaa since 75 percent of your interactions on FJ are using the fuck off reaction rather than using your words or contributing in any substantive way. Giving people the finger for actually expressing option with an emoji is not exactly helpful and it is pretty much what you do.

 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by nelliebelle1197

[byzant]

2 hours ago, Alisamer said:

So a little clarification. In 11 states private insurance is not allowed to cover elective abortion, whether that insurance is bought on the healthcare marketplace or not. So no coverage there.

In marketplace plans, 25 states ban abortion coverage. Some allow it in cases of rape, incest, or risk to the life of the mother. Some only allow it in cases of danger to the life of the mother. In Tennessee and Louisiana marketplace plans are not allowed to cover abortion for any reason at all.

Six states require insurance to cover abortion. In the remaining states it’s up to the insurance providers to choose, but if marketplace plans do cover it they must add an additional charge of at least 1 dollar to the premiums, the additional charge cannot be covered by subsidies, and must be held in a separate account for abortion coverage.

https://www.healthinsurance.org/faqs/do-health-insurance-plans-in-acas-exchanges-cover-abortion/

For Medicaid:

33 states and the District of Columbia follow the federal standard and provide abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape and incest.

4 of these states also provide state funds for abortions in cases of fetal impairment.

4 of these states also provide state funds for abortions that are necessary to prevent grave, long-lasting damage to the person's physical health.

1 state provides abortions only in cases of life endangerment, in apparent violation of the federal standard.

16 states have a policy that directs Medicaid to pay for all or most medically necessary abortions.

31 million+ Americans have either Marketplace plans or Medicaid, based on the info I found. Plus those with private non marketplace plans in the 11 states that ban insurance from covering elective abortion. 
 

It is true that not everyone would struggle to pay for an abortion, the people most likely to struggle are those who are lower income, working part time, working for smaller businesses, working as a contractor, etc. 

And even the best insurance still has complicated technicalities that have to be followed as far as networks, pre-approvals, required referrals, etc.

I’m thinking a mom working two part time jobs even in a state where abortion coverage is available might struggle to jump through the hoops and then stay on top of insurance to make sure everything is paid correctly. On top of the issues with getting time off, transportation, etc. especially since many states have weird requirements like multiple appointments, ultrasounds, waiting periods between the initial visit and the actual abortion procedure, etc. especially when the clinic might be hours away. 

Also I'm stealing this whole statement for future use(with credit of course no plagiarism) Thank you I've never seen it broken down so clearly for those of us not living in the states 

[Alisamer]

2 hours ago, byzant said:

Also I'm stealing this whole statement for future use(with credit of course no plagiarism) Thank you I've never seen it broken down so clearly for those of us not living in the states 

Go right ahead! The Marketplace part is paraphrased as I understood it from the link provided, and the Medicaid part that looks like bullet points  is a direct quote from a site that broke it down - but I’m on mobile today so formatting was being a pain. 
 

one thing I didn’t point out clearly is the fact that due to the extra funding requirements for marketplace plans where it IS allowed to be covered, many plans choose not to offer that coverage. There will usually but not always be some/a few/one plan including the coverage but many will not due to the extra requirements to separate out the money and manage those claims. 
 

im really happy for the people who live in blue states who have great insurance but that’s not the reality for a very large part of the country. And it’s the poor and the struggling who get the worst end of the deal. 
 

its yet another of those situations where it’s expensive to be poor. People making lots of money in progressive states likely have abortion coverage through their insurance. People struggling to get by are more likely to have no insurance or bare minimum insurance and no abortion coverage. 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Alisamer

[AlmostSavedAtTacoBell]

I am not caught up so please excuse me if I am repeating anyone else:

Prosecutors in several large jurisdictions are saying they will refuse to charge abortion providers even if the actions of the providers and the evidence against them clearly meets the criteria of the law beyond a reasonable doubt. These prosecutors are risking not only careers but law licenses and reputations to stand up for the rights of others. The cases may still be taken up by state Attorneys General but at least frontline medical workers are willing to take a hard stand (unnecessarily so but for the SCOTUS decision.) 

[Mela99]

I’m still trying to wrap my head around any of this. . .

IVF issues could come up. We still have that one embryo on ice. Our clinic emailed us and said we don’t know what’s going to happen yet.

I’m sitting here with my hand on my 17 week bump and silently thanking God that this baby is a boy and not a girl, and becoming more terrified by the minute about our extensive ultrasound coming up …

[GreyhoundFan]

"Antiabortion lawmakers want to block patients from crossing state lines"

Quote

Several national antiabortion groups and their allies in Republican-led state legislatures are advancing plans to stop people in states where abortion is banned from seeking the procedure elsewhere, according to people involved in the discussions.

The idea has gained momentum in some corners of the antiabortion movement in the days since the Supreme Court struck down its 49-year-old precedent protecting abortion rights nationwide, triggering abortion bans across much of the Southeast and Midwest.

The Thomas More Society, a conservative legal organization, is drafting model legislation for state lawmakers that would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a resident of a state that has banned abortion from terminating a pregnancy outside of that state. The draft language will borrow from the novel legal strategy behind a Texas abortion ban enacted last year in which private citizens were empowered to enforce the law through civil litigation.

The subject was much discussed at two national antiabortion conferences last weekend, with several lawmakers interested in introducing these kinds of bills in their own states.

The National Association of Christian Lawmakers, an antiabortion organization led by Republican state legislators, has begun working with the authors of the Texas abortion ban to explore model legislation that would restrict people from crossing state lines for abortions, said Texas state representative Tom Oliverson (R), the charter chair of the group’s national legislative council.

“Just because you jump across a state line doesn’t mean your home state doesn’t have jurisdiction,” said Peter Breen, vice president and senior counsel for the Thomas More Society. “It’s not a free abortion card when you drive across the state line.”

The Biden Justice Department has already warned states that it would fight such laws, saying they violate the right to interstate commerce.

In relying on private citizens to enforce civil litigation, rather than attempting to impose a state-enforced ban on receiving abortions across state lines, such a law is more difficult to challenge in court because abortion rights groups don’t have a clear person to sue.

Like the Texas abortion ban, the proposal itself could have a chilling effect, where doctors in surrounding states stop performing abortions before courts have an opportunity to intervene, worried that they may face lawsuits if they violate the law.

Not every antiabortion group is on board with the idea.

Catherine Glenn Foster, president of Americans United for Life, noted that people access medical procedures across state lines all the time.

“I don’t think you can prevent that,” she said.

While some antiabortion groups aspire to push Congress to pass a national abortion ban, restricting movement across state lines would represent another step in limiting the number of abortions performed in the United States.

These kinds of bills could be proposed even before state legislatures reconvene for their regular 2023 legislative sessions, said Arkansas state Sen. Jason Rapert (R). His home state, he said, may soon address this issue in an already planned special session. Another Arkansas senator, he said, has expressed interest in introducing that legislation.

“Many of us have supported legislation to stop human trafficking,” said Rapert, president of the National Association of Christian Lawmakers. “So why is there a pass on people trafficking women in order to make money off of aborting their babies?”

In a television interview over the weekend, South Dakota Gov. Kristi L. Noem (R) left the door open to restricting out-of-state abortions in her state, where a trigger ban took effect as soon as Roe was overturned. The governor, who has called a special session to discuss abortion legislation, said the topic may be debated in South Dakota in the future.

Dale Bartscher, the executive director of South Dakota Right to Life, the leading antiabortion organization in South Dakota, said he was “very interested” in stopping South Dakota residents from accessing abortion in other states.

“I’ve heard that bantered about across the state of South Dakota,” he said, though he would not discuss the goal of the upcoming special session.

The idea to restrict out-of-state abortions surfaced earlier this year, when Missouri state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R) proposed legislation that relied on the Texas-style enforcement mechanism. While Coleman’s bill failed to pass in the 2022 legislative session, Coleman said she has heard from multiple lawmakers and antiabortion advocates in other states who are eager to pursue similar legislation.

The issue is particularly pertinent in Coleman’s home state of Missouri, which outlawed abortion with a trigger ban that took effect within an hour of the Supreme Court’s decision. As many as 14,000 people are expected to flood into southern Illinois this year, including thousands of Missouri residents, according to Planned Parenthood.

Several Democrat-led states have passed legislation this year to counteract laws that try to restrict movement across state lines.

Connecticut passed a law in April that offers broad protections from antiabortion laws that try to reach into other states. The measure would shield people from out-of-state summonses or subpoenas issued in cases related to abortion procedures that are legal in Connecticut. And it would prevent Connecticut authorities from adhering to another state’s request to investigate or punish anyone involved in facilitating a legal abortion in Connecticut.

“Legislators in [antiabortion] states have made clear that their intent is not only to ban abortion within their own state’s borders, but to ban it in states where it is expressly permitted,” Connecticut state Rep. Matt Blumenthal (D) said in an interview in April.

California passed a similar law Thursday, aiming to protect abortion providers and patients from civil suits.

The Justice Department has already signaled its intention to fight against these kinds of laws in court.

In a statement Friday, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe “does not eliminate the ability of states to keep abortion legal within their borders. And the Constitution continues to restrict states’ authority to ban reproductive services provided outside their borders.”

That declaration suggests that if a particular state did pass a law seeking to prevent women from traveling across state lines to receive an abortion, the Justice Department might file court papers opposing such a law. That strategy was ultimately unsuccessful in the Justice Department’s opposition to the Texas law limiting many abortions, but any new state law that involved interstate travel could raise additional legal questions for the courts.

Garland argued that the Constitution was unequivocal on the legality of crossing state lines for medical treatment.

“We recognize that traveling to obtain reproductive care may not be feasible in many circumstances. But under bedrock constitutional principles, women who reside in states that have banned access to comprehensive reproductive care must remain free to seek that care in states where it is legal,” Garland said, adding that the First Amendment safeguards anyone who offers information or counseling about “reproductive care that is available in other states.”

A Justice Department spokesman did not elaborate on the attorney general’s statement.

David Cohen, a Drexel University law professor who has studied these kinds of proposals, noted that Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh addressed interstate travel in a separate concurring opinion he wrote along with the ruling to overturn Roe, where he specified that people could not be prosecuted for out-of-state abortions.

But Kavanaugh’s concurrence does not address the civil enforcement strategy that is gaining traction among antiabortion groups, Cohen said.

“This is going to create state-against-state and state-against-federal chaos that we haven’t seen in this country in a long time.”

 

[Destiny]

43 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Antiabortion lawmakers want to block patients from crossing state lines"

 

You would think this would be clear violation of the Commerce Clause, but given that the Less-Supreme-Than-A-Taco-Bell-Crunchwrap Court has decided that literally nothing fucking matters, I think it's absolutely fair to be worried.

[Destiny]

Also, fuck all the assholes who were talking heads on various programs for the last week who were going on about how this isn't a ban, we are just leaving it to the people to decide -- so the people can "decide" what you agree with, but can't decide to leave the state to get healthcare? Separately from being fucking evil, the logic makes no sense!

Edited June 30, 2022 by Destiny

[GreyhoundFan]

"Post-Roe, can states ban employer abortion-related aid? It’s not that simple."

Quote

Even before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on June 24, Disney, Netflix and other companies were announcing plans to offer paid leave and travel expenses to employees who travel out-of-state to obtain abortions that have been banned in their states.

Whether it’s about reputation, retention or revenue, these employers have concluded that supporting reproductive rights, like combating racism and protecting the environment, is a stance they can’t afford not to take.

But offering abortion employment benefits carries legal risks for employers that go far beyond the usual threat of consumer boycotts of companies that take a position on a polarizing issue. Thirteen states have trigger laws criminalizing abortion immediately or within 30 days of Roe being struck down, and other states are expected to enact abortion bans soon.

That means companies that offer abortion-related benefits to employees in those states could be accused of aiding and abetting criminal activity. Robert Ellerbrock, a partner at FisherBroyles specializing in benefits law, notes that offering abortion-related benefits means “trying to figure out what’s safest for the employer while trying to help employees out.”

Determining whether an employer’s benefits violate laws in states banning abortion depends on how the benefit plans are structured and funded.

Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), fully insured group health plans, where an employer buys health insurance for its employees through a commercial insurer, are subject to state laws, Ellerbrock said.

But for self-insured ERISA health plans, where the employer covers the cost of providing health-care benefits to its employees directly, ERISA preempts state law, he said.

Ellerbrock and other legal experts anticipate much litigation over this and related employment issues in the months and years ahead.

Even in states where abortion is still legal, employees in antiabortion work environments may be afraid of being harassed or losing their jobs if they seek an abortion. But they do at least have some job protections under current law.

Privacy

Let’s start with employees of companies that offer abortion-related benefits through self-insured ERISA health plans. Workers may have concerns about their privacy if they try to claim those benefits.

But according to Ellerbrock, most employers offering self-funded insurance plans hire an external administrator. Any claims data that the employer sees is scrubbed to show only how much is being spent and on what kinds of services, without identifying whom it’s being spent on.

Further, employers that administer their own plans in-house should have a HIPAA privacy officer who is required by law to keep individuals’ medical information private from the employer, Ellerbrock says. The bottom line: Employers cannot legally identify or share information about which employees are claiming which benefits based on information obtained from insurance claims.

Federal job protections

Employees who don’t have access to reproductive-health benefits through their jobs have to fund it themselves or seek assistance from abortion-funding networks. Employers are not required to carry health-care plans that cover any form of contraception. But federal law still provides general job protections for workers with eligible medical conditions — within limits.

• The Family and Medical Leave Act provides up to 12 weeks of job-protected leave for medical care — but only for eligible employees with qualifying conditions who have been with an FMLA-covered employer for at least a year. And, of course, the leave is unpaid.
• A pregnant employee may qualify for accommodations such as time off under the Americans With Disabilities Act, according to Tom Spiggle of Spiggle Law. But there’s no guarantee you’ll receive the accommodation, and your employer has the right to demand documentation from your doctor to justify your request. Your doctor may know how to word a letter that makes clear your medical need for accommodation without giving unnecessary detail.
• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has confirmed that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, specifically the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, prohibits discrimination against anyone who considers or obtains an abortion. The law also prohibits discrimination against someone who is pregnant and chooses not to get an abortion. In other words, Title VII protects the employee’s right to choose what to do about their own condition — at least in an employment context.

Of course, all this abstract legal discourse is cold comfort to anyone facing the real risk of being punished and prosecuted outside the workplace. An employer that can’t fire you for having an abortion can certainly find another reason, especially if you’re arrested for it. If you struggle to afford travel and taking unpaid leave, hiring a lawyer for a prolonged legal battle is certainly out of reach.

And while employers stepping up to support abortion access for employees is welcome news to abortion rights advocates, it’s a tenuous and incomplete solution. But perhaps the engines of commerce can drive necessary change where political will has fallen short.

 

[Destiny]

1 minute ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Post-Roe, can states ban employer abortion-related aid? It’s not that simple."

 

I know the cruelty is the point, but Jesus. The only small silver lining I can see is that maybe Repubs going after corp America will cause Corporate America to fall out of love and stop funding them? It would seem illogical to fund someone that is currently suing you ... Not that corporations are logical and I'm probably being a bit too blue skies on a dark and cloudy day.

[front hugs > duggs]

45 minutes ago, Destiny said:

I know the cruelty is the point, but Jesus. The only small silver lining I can see is that maybe Repubs going after corp America will cause Corporate America to fall out of love and stop funding them? It would seem illogical to fund someone that is currently suing you ... Not that corporations are logical and I'm probably being a bit too blue skies on a dark and cloudy day.

It's (somewhat?) happening in Florida. DeSantis went after Disney, and Disney has stopped ALL political giving right now. I'm not necessarily saying this is the best move, as that means they are not contributing to Dems either. But DeSantis going after them is making them at least re-evaluate why/when/where they are contributing.

[Destiny]

12 minutes ago, front hugs > duggs said:

It's (somewhat?) happening in Florida. DeSantis went after Disney, and Disney has stopped ALL political giving right now. I'm not necessarily saying this is the best move, as that means they are not contributing to Dems either. But DeSantis going after them is making them at least re-evaluate why/when/where they are contributing.

I know, which is part of the reason I was kind of wondering if maybe that would end up an unintended consequence of this whole mess. I'm not going to lie, at this point, I'm at the stage of grief and anger where I'm not even sure there is a way back and that absolutely colours my thinking.

[Alisamer]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Antiabortion lawmakers want to block patients from crossing state lines"

 

How in the world would that even work? Pee tests for every woman who crosses the state line? That'll be inconvenient for anyone anywhere near the border of two states. I crossed the line between SC and NC at least 10 times on Tuesday evening - I went to the amusement park that sits right on the line, so most of those were inside the park and walking (or riding any of the coasters that cross the line repeatedly), but I crossed it at least 3-5 times driving there and back due to the way the entrances are situated. And lots of small roads cross over, it's not like a country's border where people are funnelled to checkpoints.

Are they going to station a cop with a stop sign and a port-a-potty with a stack of dollar store pregnancy tests at every place a tiny rural road crosses the state line? How would they handle 8-lane highways crossing the state line at 80mph? What about female truck drivers? And what about the people who are pregnant, who are just crossing the state line to go to work or visit family or whatever? I once worked a job where I lived in SC, parked in NC, worked in SC, went back to NC for lunch, went back to SC to work, then back to NC to get the car, back to SC to get out of the parking lot, and then back to NC to get home. I worked another job that was in NC entirely, but we regularly went to lunch in SC, or stopped to get cheaper gas in SC before going home. One of my co-workers was pregnant. Would she have had to have a notarized document stating she was intending to keep the baby? Will women who have had hysterectomies or gone through menopause have to carry a card from their doctor certifying those facts?

Also, I was thinking last night about the Hyde restrictions on abortion care and abortion coverage. It seems that a large percentage of insurance coverage for abortion is for "Hyde" abortions only - those in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. My question (and I don't know the answer to this, I'm just thinking it out) is how does that work? Like, is it enough to just tell the clinic it was rape? You'd have to tell the insurance company too, of course. Are there requirements? LIke, pregnancies resulting from rape or incest only being covered if it is reported to police? If it is reported and the abortion is done, but the perpetrator is acquitted, will insurance ask for the money back that was paid for the abortion? Would the woman be charged with having an illegal abortion? 

Some states are disallowing abortion for any reason whatsoever, but I could see other states sneaking in there by deciding that abortion for rape and incest is only allowed if the rape or incest is properly prosecuted. Which means the fetus will likely be at least a preschooler before the decision is allowed to be made, the way the courts move in some places. Not to mention the decades-long backlog of rape kits in some states. 

It'll be like the woman approved for Section 8 housing 30 years after she applied. Women will get a letter - "We have processed the kit from the rape you reported, and are in the process of prosecution. Your eligibility for an abortion will be decided upon conclusion of a jury trial, date to be determined." Meanwhile, the woman already has grandchildren from the child born from that rape, because it's been decades. 

I think these problems are a feature, not a bug, to the Republicans making those decisions. They want a federal abortion ban, and creating as many complications as possible for having varied state laws might be the first step. Make it as difficult and inconvenient and expensive as possible for people to just live, to annoy those who aren't as affected by abortion into approving of a nationwide ban. You know there are plenty of ambivalent men who would get so annoyed by being inconvenienced that they'd approve of it. And plenty of wealthy people who can get abortions no matter the legality who would do the same. 

[SilverBeach]

21 hours ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

I find this especially rich from you towards someone like @nausicaa since 75 percent of your interactions on FJ are using the fuck off reaction rather than using your words or contributing in any substantive way. Giving people the finger for actually expressing option with an emoji is not exactly helpful and it is pretty much what you do.

 

 

 

What you say here was a pet peeve of mine about FJ, those who would pretty much only drive-by downvote or fuck-you, with no meaningful contribution to advance the discussion. Those practices were defended, ie. no one has to explain their reaction, etc. I'm glad you see how useless this is.

[SilverBeach]

Hello, I haven't posted in a while, but I thought of FJ after the clowns of the SC advanced Gilead last week. I am long past menopause, but my daughter isn't. I've been depressed and dispirited.

These fuckers elected Dump to pack the courts, he was their useful idiot in getting the theocracy they want, constitution be damned. I've been thinking again of how perhaps I can retire as an expat. I really don't like it here. Guns and violence are OK, including shooting the babies they say they love so much (a FIVE MONTH OLD was murdered in Chicago last week while in a car that someone walked up to and started shooting in). But bodily autonomy? Full access to health care? Not for these controlling assholes.

They don't even believe the creation account of their own bible which states that life began when God BREATHED into the form he made.

I haven't felt this badly since the 2016 presidential election.  Help us all.

[Mela99]

It's (somewhat?) happening in Florida. DeSantis went after Disney, and Disney has stopped ALL political giving right now. I'm not necessarily saying this is the best move, as that means they are not contributing to Dems either. But DeSantis going after them is making them at least re-evaluate why/when/where they are contributing.

Do you think any of this means there’s a chance to rid the state of DeSantis?

Hello, I haven't posted in a while, but I thought of FJ after the clowns of the SC advanced Gilead last week. I am long past menopause, but my daughter isn't. I've been depressed and dispirited.
These fuckers elected Dump to pack the courts, he was their useful idiot in getting the theocracy they want, constitution be damned. I've been thinking again of how perhaps I can retire as an expat. I really don't like it here. Guns and violence are OK, including shooting the babies they say they love so much (a FIVE MONTH OLD was murdered in Chicago last week while in a car that someone walked up to and started shooting in). But bodily autonomy? Full access to health care? Not for these controlling assholes.
They don't even believe the creation account of their own bible which states that life began when God BREATHED into the form he made.
I haven't felt this badly since the 2016 presidential election.  Help us all.

I’m just sending you a lot of hugs, this is way worse than 2016.

[front hugs > duggs]

9 hours ago, Mela99 said:

Do you think any of this means there’s a chance to rid the state of DeSantis?

I'm not sure honestly. Charlie Crist is looking like he'll be the Dem nominee for the Gubernatorial race. He actually was governor once before, albeit as a Republican. Despite that, he has been an active voice on the pro-abortion front. While these aren't MY personal beliefs, I believe the US overall finds middle/older aged white men more "electable", and he checks that box.

News around Florida is showing that as 'Don't Say Gay' is effective as of today, LGBTQ+ teachers are being told to remove their family photos from their classrooms and take down their Safe Spaces stickers. Sometimes I regret moving here, but I'm trying really hard to make a difference and get involved when I can to try to influence change little by little.

(One of my neighbors recentlly gave me major side eye though when I was walking my dog in a political t-shirt, but IDGAF!)

[Destiny]

The first (to my knowledge) bill that says you can't give information on even out-of-state abortion to a woman or help her do so has been filed. (There's a link to the actual bill in the replies)

I'm no Constitutional scholar, but I can't see how this would be Constitutional under a legitimate court -- it should violate both the First Amendment and the Commerce Clause, but with the state of the courts, who the fuck knows?

Edited July 1, 2022 by Destiny
Punctuation is good.

[church_of_dog]

1 hour ago, Destiny said:

The first (to my knowledge) bill that says you can't give information on even out-of-state abortion to a woman or help her do so has been filed. (There's a link to the actual bill in the replies)

I'm no Constitutional scholar, but I can't see how this would be Constitutional under a legitimate court -- it should violate both the First Amendment and the Commerce Clause, but with the state of the courts, who the fuck knows?

I agree.  Plus people travel for many reasons.  Sometimes a single trip has multiple purposes, so unless they intend to ban interstate travel altogether, who can say that someone didn't go sightseeing, or to visit a friend, and then "discover" what other activities are legal in that state?

(I can't believe I actually wrote the above.  It feels like a third grade attempt at dystopian fiction, which would in any other time receive a poor mark for lack of plausibility...)

Also people consider moving from place to place and then change their minds.  I once spent less than a week (with most of my belongings moved) in a new town before changing my mind and moving everything back to where I lived before.

Edited July 1, 2022 by church_of_dog

[Destiny]

9 minutes ago, church_of_dog said:

I agree.  Plus people travel for many reasons.  Sometimes a single trip has multiple purposes, so unless they intend to ban interstate travel altogether, who can say that someone didn't go sightseeing, or to visit a friend, and then "discover" what other activities are legal in that state?

(I can't believe I actually wrote the above.  It feels like a third grade attempt at dystopian fiction, which would in any other time receive a poor mark for lack of plausibility...)

I think it's intended to, a) chill abortion funds and the various nonprofits that support abortion access, b) chill random people who might want to help, and c) further isolate pregnant people who are in need of services.

Most of us don't have a fallback position where we can afford to be arrested and lose our jobs in this fight, I'd assume.  Gods know I don't; I'd be in serious trouble in less than 3 months without employment. Keep the nonprofits from volunteers, keep pregnant people in need isolated, and you've made a big inroad if you are these forced birth assholes.

Edited July 1, 2022 by Destiny

[church_of_dog]

2 minutes ago, Destiny said:

I think it's intended to, a) chill abortion funds and the various nonprofits that support abortion access, b) chill random people who might want to help, and c) further isolate pregnant people who are in need of services.

Most of us don't have a fallback position where we can afford to be arrested and lose our jobs in this fight, I'd assume.  Gods know I don't; I'd be in serious trouble in less than 3 months without employment. Keep the nonprofits from volunteers, keep pregnant people in need isolated, and you've made a big inroad if you are these forced birth assholes.

Agreed.  I was mostly thinking about how unenforceable these kinds of ideas are.  Because for every pregnant person they are attempting to catch traveling, they would have to screen millions of other travelers.

So psyching women out of even considering traveling for abortion, plus psyching helpers and funders out of providing assistance as you say, is the only way they might actually succeed IMO.  Horrifying.

[Destiny]

8 minutes ago, church_of_dog said:

Agreed.  I was mostly thinking about how unenforceable these kinds of ideas are.  Because for every pregnant person they are attempting to catch traveling, they would have to screen millions of other travelers.

Oh absolutely. I think this is very much another one of those 'the cruelty is the point' deals.

I would just like to say again FUCK all those talking heads who went on TV last weekend going on about how abortion wasn't banned and people could still travel to get abortions if they wanted to, it was just returning control to the states. Liars! It was completely obvious that they planned to do stuff exactly like this and has been for months.