Gilead is Real: The War on Women Part 4

[Coconut Flan]

Continued from here:

 

Abortion wasn't enough, birth control won't be enough, divorce is next but not likely the last agenda item.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/25/republicans-no-fault-divorce

 

 

[Coconut Flan]

Unintended consequences are increasing:

https://www.chron.com/news/article/texas-infant-deaths-abortion-19538896.php

[Ozlsn]

19 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

Continued from here:

 

Abortion wasn't enough, birth control won't be enough, divorce is next but not likely the last agenda item.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/25/republicans-no-fault-divorce

 

 

One fix to that one - change marriage to come under contract law with a 5 year term and renewable option, as well as termination clauses. All marriages to be performed civilly, religious marriage not recognised unless civil marriage takes place first.

In cases of de facto relationships (or religious marriage without civil marriage, which would be same difference at that point) and/or civil marriages where children are involved ending all assets in the relationship divided equally between partners and custody decided under family law if mediation doesn't work.

I am still not sure that last sentence made as much sense as I wanted - where children are involved split assets equally and determine custody whether or not the partnership was legally recognised. That would certainly provide an incentive to draw up civil contracts regarding who owned what going in...

[SPHASH]

Next, ban women from the workforce and deny them credit card access, loans, and mortgages.

Seriously don't these assholes realize by banning divorce will lead to more couples cohabitation without the benefit of marriage.

Edited June 26 by SPHASH

[Audrey2]

1 hour ago, SPHASH said:

Next, ban women from the workforce and deny them credit card access, loans, and mortgages.

I really wouldn't put it past them. I'm sure that some of the power brokers already are making plans for this.

[Ozlsn]

9 hours ago, SPHASH said:

Seriously don't these assholes realize by banning divorce will lead to more couples cohabitation without the benefit of marriage.

They want to ban no fault divorce. So another option would be for fault divorce to mean that 100% of the assets in the relationship went to the "faultless" partner - I'm sure Newt Gingrich, Rick McCormick etc would be fine with that.

Being honest though - they want to control women, and women having sex outside of marriage, or wanting to leave a relationship threatens that. I would prefer they treat de facto relationships past a certain point as equivalent to marriage (if you can show that it's long term, mixed finances, children etc) and put end dates on marriage contracts rather than them being life long. Also make it so the only people able to enter marriage contracts are adults, no matter how pregnant they are.

Actually also add termination clauses as well as end dates - parties can agree to end the contract with 30  days notice and agree to work amicably to resolve disputes; clauses where intimate partner violence or infidelity occurs automatically trigger termination unless both parties agree to continue.

But that would threaten them as well, as the only purpose is to control women.

Edited June 27 by Ozlsn
Termination clauses

[GreyhoundFan]

SCOTUS handed down a ruling on abortions in Idaho today. More anchors need to treat lie-spewing anti-abortion yahoos this way:

 

Here's an article about today's temporary decision.

Quote

Pregnant people in Idaho should be able to access abortion in a medical emergency in Idaho, at least for now.

The Supreme Court formally dismissed an appeal over Idaho’s strict abortion ban on Thursday, blocking enforcement of the state’s law where it conflicts with federal law. With Thursday’s decision, the state would not be allowed to deny an emergency abortion to a pregnant person whose health is in danger, at least while the case makes its way through the courts.

On Wednesday, the decision was mistakenly posted on the US Supreme Court website, and was first reported by Bloomberg News. The final opinion on Thursday was a sigh of relief, but doctors and legal experts acknowledged it’s a temporary reprieve.

“Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a separate opinion. “It is a delay.”

“Storm clouds loom ahead,” she wrote.

Idaho’s strict ban criminalizes performing most abortions and does not allow a doctor to perform an abortion if the patient’s health is in danger from the pregnancy itself in most circumstances. The Biden administration argued that the law violates the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, also known as EMTALA.

EMTALA requires all US hospitals that have received Medicare money — essentially nearly all of them — to screen everyone who comes into their emergency rooms to determine whether the person has an emergency medical condition without regard for their ability to pay for those services.

The 1986 law requires hospitals, to the best of their ability, to stabilize anyone with an emergency medical condition or to transfer them to another facility that has that capacity. The hospitals must also treat these patients “until the emergency medical condition is resolved or stabilized.”

Pregnant people were singled out in the law in 1989, after reports that some hospitals were refusing to care for uninsured women in labor. Congress expanded EMTALA to specify how it included people who were pregnant and having contractions.

In 2021, the Biden administration released the Reinforcement of EMTALA Obligation, which says a doctor’s duty to provide stabilizing treatment “preempts any directly conflicting state law or mandated that might otherwise prohibit or prevent such treatment,” although it did not specify whether an abortion has to be provided.

In July 2022, the Biden administration’s guidance clarified that EMTALA includes the need to perform stabilization abortion care if it is medically necessary to treat an emergency medical condition.

The Supreme Court’s decision means a hospital must provide an abortion if it’s medically indicated in an emergency situation, even in states that have abortion bans or restrictions that don’t provide an exception to protect the health of the mother – at least as the case makes it way through the courts.

But the move would only delay the issue, says Molly Meegan, chief legal officer for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a professional organization that represents the majority of practitioners in the United States.

“It doesn’t solve the problem at all. In fact, pregnant patients are still trying to obtain care and unable to get it, and physicians are trying to provide care without clear parameters and with draconian criminal penalties hanging over their heads if they get the question wrong,” she said.

Dr. Stella Dantas, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said that the Supreme Court’s decision shows exactly why clinicians need to be protected from outside interference in their relationship with patients, particularly when they need emergency care. Dantas said a law created by politicians that restricts a doctor’s ability to provide care in an emergency is like having someone who has never flown a plane create restrictions on what a pilot could do during a flight emergency.

“If that person couldn’t do x, y, or z, when they were trained, in a split-second, if something flew into the engine, you wouldn’t feel safe, and it wouldn’t be the best for any of those people flying on a plane,” Dantas said at a news conference on Thursday.

“This case has illustrated for many how critical abortion care is for all of us. For clinicians who care about their patients, for patients who may someday need an abortion and for the people that love them.

“Depriving patients of evidence-based care is unacceptable.”

Idaho’s abortion law had an immediate effect on hospitals in the state. On January 5, the Supreme Court lifted an injunction so Idaho no longer had EMTALA protections for pregnancy complications. St. Luke’s, the state’s largest provider of emergency services, said in April it had to send six pregnant patients from its emergency department out of state via air transport to protect their health.

The year before, when the injunction was in effect, the hospital had to do this only once.

Meegan said the law hasn’t just hurt patient care. Physicians have told the group that they are leaving the state because they don’t feel that they can practice medicine in a way that’s consistent with their ethical obligations, training and judgment.

“It’s an untenable situation,” Meegan said.

Dr. Kara Cadwallader, a doctor who works in Idaho and is a member of the Idaho Coalition for Safe Healthcare, said that even last week, her hospital had to send a pregnant person out of state for care even though they typically could have treated her. She said Wednesday she was “very excited” about the ruling, even if it is a “small step.”

“Beyond all the political reasons, it’s incredibly important for pregnant patients here in Idaho, who now will be able to access emergency care appropriately,” Cadwallader said.

US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said that with this decision, the Biden administration will continue to uphold the law and the right to emergency care. The administration also plans to make it easier for someone who is denied care to be able to file a complaint.

“When the Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it unleashed an unprecedented assault on reproductive rights, and every day we see the consequences,” Becerra said in a statement. “Under President Biden’s leadership, we have worked directly with providers, hospitals, and community leaders across the country to navigate the chaos that the decision introduced.”

Still, abortion regulations around the country are murky. Professor Elizabeth Sepper, of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, said that “in every other state with an abortion ban, confusion will continue to reign.”

“Even where states have ‘health’ exceptions in their laws, they typically are narrower than what EMTALA requires,” Sepper wrote in an email.

Forty-one states have abortion bans in effect with only limited exceptions, and 14 states have total bans. Around the country, doctors are confused about what they are allowed to do, said Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, a privately owned health care company that provides abortion care.

“So this isn’t only about Idaho. This is really something that all eyes and ears are watching from multiple states across the country to try to figure out what we’re able to do to provide basic health care, even if abortion has been restricted,” Hagstrom Miller said.

“Abortion saves lives. Abortion is absolutely necessary, oftentimes in emergency room settings to protect the health of the pregnant person. I think providers really understand that their hands have been tied post-Roe here, since the Dobbs decision, in numerous states and numerous parts of the country.

Standard care for a woman who needs an emergency abortion does not vary from state to state, said Dr. Nisha Verma, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Emory University in Georgia. However, she said, the kind of care a patient will receive is totally dependent on where she lives.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case did not address the medical complexities this kind of care requires, and it will lead to confusion, fear and delays in what can be life-saving care, she said.

“What we had really hoped for is the Supreme Court to come down very firmly that doctors should be able to provide care for patients, including in emergency situations where abortion care can often be needed to stabilize patients. I think that working here in Georgia, we are constantly in a state of confusion trying to navigate incredibly confusing laws with exceptions that just don’t make sense on the ground, that don’t take into consideration all of the complexity that we deal with every day,” Verma said.

The ruling does not change the situation in Texas, reproductive legal advocates say. Texas sued the US government over EMTALA guidance, and in 2022 a federal judge allowed the EMTALA to be blocked. The federal government has asked the Supreme Court to review the law. That case could potentially go before the Supreme Court next term.

“We should have never been in a place where states like Idaho, Texas, and others across the country could have state bans that seek to ignore federal law, forcing providers to forfeit their best medical judgment and second guess the care they can provide out of fear of criminalization and other penalties,” Alexis McGill Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood said at a news conference Thursday. She called Thursday’s decision “supreme gaslighting” that will allow the court to come back to the decisions down the road, “perhaps leaving it for when it’s more politically convenient.”

“Our bodies, lives and futures are still under deliberation,” McGill said.

Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, said she sees Idaho as a “very cruel case study” of what happens when the law strips pregnant people of their right to emergency abortion care. She said Wednesday that she was disappointed in the ruling because the court had the opportunity to uphold a law that gives everyone access to care — but failed to do so.

“The right to emergency care is perhaps one of the most basic rights there is,” Kolbi-Molinas said. “We were fighting for scraps in this case, and even with that, a majority of the Supreme Court was not willing to recognize the humanity of pregnant people, that they would be entitled to this basic right to emergency care.”

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Worth a watch:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Yes, Lindsey, we will remember.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

An excellent video:

 

[Smee]

On 6/26/2024 at 8:54 PM, Ozlsn said:

In cases of de facto relationships (or religious marriage without civil marriage, which would be same difference at that point) and/or civil marriages where children are involved ending all assets in the relationship divided equally between partners and custody decided under family law if mediation doesn't work.

I am still not sure that last sentence made as much sense as I wanted - where children are involved split assets equally and determine custody whether or not the partnership was legally recognised. That would certainly provide an incentive to draw up civil contracts regarding who owned what going in...

Out of curiosity, what is divorce law in the US like when it comes to division of assets? I immediately jumped on "divided equally" because that is so often what people THINK is "fair" when they first consider splitting from their partner and wanting things to be amicable, but having gone through it (not in the US) and having a much more intimate understanding of family law now, I know that's far from true. When one person has been the primary carer to children, and that's had an impact on their career growth and earning capacity (e.g. stay at home parent taking extended leave, or reducing to part time while the second parent goes for promotions that involve longer hours), being left with half the assets, a fraction of the retirement funds, and maybe a third of the ongoing salary isn't at all equal. One of you is leaving that relationship at a much bigger loss than the other, and it's not the guy crying about how he had to sell "his" house.

ETA: I just realised you're not in the US either 🤦‍♀️ Just in case it ever comes up for you, here in Aus I was entitled to 55-75% of the total assets including superannuation. My income is less than half of his despite graduating a year before him with the same qualification - that's the motherhood tax.

On 7/4/2024 at 1:51 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

An excellent video:

 

So well articulated, and she did well to not cry at the end there. It disgusts me that this was the aim all along.

Edited July 9 by Smee

[Ozlsn]

3 hours ago, Smee said:

When one person has been the primary carer to children, and that's had an impact on their career growth and earning capacity (e.g. stay at home parent taking extended leave, or reducing to part time while the second parent goes for promotions that involve longer hours), being left with half the assets, a fraction of the retirement funds, and maybe a third of the ongoing salary isn't at all equal. One of you is leaving that relationship at a much bigger loss than the other, and it's not the guy crying about how he had to sell "his" house.

No, I should have more accurately said "equitably" rather than "equally".  Divorce here is one of the risk factors for homelessness in women.

[klein_roeschen]

9 hours ago, Smee said:

Out of curiosity, what is divorce law in the US like when it comes to division of assets? I immediately jumped on "divided equally" because that is so often what people THINK is "fair" when they first consider splitting from their partner and wanting things to be amicable, but having gone through it (not in the US) and having a much more intimate understanding of family law now, I know that's far from true. When one person has been the primary carer to children, and that's had an impact on their career growth and earning capacity (e.g. stay at home parent taking extended leave, or reducing to part time while the second parent goes for promotions that involve longer hours), being left with half the assets, a fraction of the retirement funds, and maybe a third of the ongoing salary isn't at all equal. One of you is leaving that relationship at a much bigger loss than the other, and it's not the guy crying about how he had to sell "his" house.

ETA: I just realised you're not in the US either 🤦‍♀️ Just in case it ever comes up for you, here in Aus I was entitled to 55-75% of the total assets including superannuation. My income is less than half of his despite graduating a year before him with the same qualification - that's the motherhood tax.

I can answer the question for Germany. Almost any marriage here is in one of the following to forms. The majority of couples have a Zugewinngemeinschaft. Assets aquiered during marriage are in the name of the spouse who gets them, but there will be a split of assets during a divorce. This also includes aquiered public retirement savings. And you will automatically get that, any other needs a pre-nup. The second most is Gütertrennung, which means both spouses will not only have their assets completly separated, that includes everything they aquiere in their name only during the divorce and it can't be diveded. The exception are assets they aquiere in both name.
Spousal support is very limited, most often only when there are children under the age of 6, where they start elemantery school. Maybe if one of the children is disabled and needs constant caregiving beyond that age. But thats not a given. After we got a reform of family laws years ago, the spouse focusing on the family is even more the fucked one. Because if they can work on paper, they have to work. If they don't find work, the have to get welfare, no matter how much the ex-spouse makes. And that also includes widows/ widowers pensions. After a reform on that part, you will only get that pension after a specific age depending on the age of the deceased spouse, the calculation of that is to complicated to describe. The exception is if there a kids under 3 years in the household and the payment for the widow/ widower ends with the 3rd birthday.
Child support payment are depending on the official income of the non- custodian parent. If the earn below the minimum for child support, they don't have to pay and the costudial parent has to get welfare benefits if they earn not enough. I know some cases where the fathers officially only earn just below the minimum and they get the rest under the table and live very comfortably, while the mothers are working hard to make ends meet. But she is the greedy one. And if the other parent is deceased, the child will get an orphans pension until they finished their education or have their 27th birthday while still getting an education. No other strings attached in that case.
And it is also a lot more complicated than that of my short description, because Germany and bureocrazy, we invented that shit, we have an image to uphold.

[Smee]

17 hours ago, klein_roeschen said:

Child support payment are depending on the official income of the non- custodian parent. If the earn below the minimum for child support, they don't have to pay and the costudial parent has to get welfare benefits if they earn not enough. I know some cases where the fathers officially only earn just below the minimum and they get the rest under the table and live very comfortably, while the mothers are working hard to make ends meet. But she is the greedy one. And if the other parent is deceased, the child will get an orphans pension until they finished their education or have their 27th birthday while still getting an education. No other strings attached in that case.
And it is also a lot more complicated than that of my short description, because Germany and bureocrazy, we invented that shit, we have an image to uphold.

How low is the minimum? Over here there is a basic minimum amount that each parent can earn that doesn't get counted in a child support assessment, but it's pretty tiny, a part time job at minimum wage. Everything over that, from both parents, gets pooled to form the "child support income" and then they have some bizarre formulas to calculate the 'cost' of each child and how care percentages factor in to figure out how much the higher-income earner has to pay. Even if care is 50:50, a higher-income earner will likely have to pay something because the idea is to ensure the kids have a similar lifestyle in both houses. I hear you about bureaucracy, looking at the actual tables around how they calculate the amounts makes my head hurt.

[GreyhoundFan]

[Coconut Flan]

  The more these far right Republicans talk, the worse they get.  What still eludes me is the need to interfere with other people's lives.  The Republicans used to be the keep Government out of our lives people.  

[GreyhoundFan]

TW: child rape.

Spoiler

 

Talk about father of the year. /s

[Ozlsn]

... how tf can a father not look at his 10 year old daughter and see that continuing a pregnancy would be physically and mentally damaging? I realise this idiot is speaking hypothetically and virtue signalling on the internet but seriously here, WTAF?

Also I am side eyeing the absolute crap out of him because who the hell even plans for, let alone posts about what they would do in that scenario?  Maybe he should consider keeping his daughter away from preachers.

9 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

... can they even mandate that? I mean, the states couldn't shut borders during covid or restrict people travelling from what I could see, how are they planning on enforcing this? Hopefully we don't find out in November. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Because of course:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Yes!

[fraurosena]

6 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Yes!

This act alone probably turned Arizona blue.

[GreyhoundFan]

[Audrey2]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

They talk about returning the consequentiality to sex but they wouldn't be okay with the woman in their life saying, "Not tonight, dear."

[apple1]

On 7/11/2024 at 9:06 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

Because of course:

 

That's (I hate to even type his name) Jason Miller, who secretly dosed his mistress's smoothie with abortion medication, causing the death of the fetus. I considered Miller a horrible human being, even before this almost-unbelievable incident.

www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/05/trumpworlds-jason-miller-must-pay-gizmodo-thousands-for-accurately-reporting-insane-story-about-him

I have a difficult time understanding why "news" (fake or actual) organizations even give people like this publicity.