Jump to content

Roe v Wade headed up to the Supremes


Recommended Posts

Louisiana passed a couple of years ago a "trigger ban" law.  The defined trigger is if Roe is overturned.  Then bang, the trigger pulled--abortion becomes illegal in the State.  A couple of other Southern states did the same. 

https://liftlouisiana.org/issues/abortion-restrictions

Very roughly speaking, the State is Catholic south, conservative Baptist north..

Link to post
Share on other sites

So...how many Supremes is Biden going to add to the court? Because if he doesn't, those Heritage Foundation fuckers currently infesting the court are going to drag the USA back to 1760.

Another option would be to impeach at least Kavanaugh and probably Barrett for lying in their appearances in front of Congress.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

So...how many Supremes is Biden going to add to the court? Because if he doesn't, those Heritage Foundation fuckers currently infesting the court are going to drag the USA back to 1760.

Another option would be to impeach at least Kavanaugh and probably Barrett for lying in their appearances in front of Congress.

If there is ironclad proof (and I've seen claims from serious people that there is) then ^this^ would be the way to go

Send a message that in some cases, bullshit truly does not work.

Of course, at least one or two Republicans would have to sign on to that, and it's doubtful

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

If there is ironclad proof (and I've seen claims from serious people that there is) then ^this^ would be the way to go

Send a message that in some cases, bullshit truly does not work.

Of course, at least one or two Republicans would have to sign on to that, and it's doubtful

- DSK

Not long after Trump nominated him, The Washington Post reported that since joining the DC Circuit Court of Appeals as a judge in 2006, Kavanaugh had run up a significant amount of debt that often appeared to exceed the value of his cash and investment assets. His debts on three credit cards, as well as a loan against his retirement account, totaled between $60,000 and $200,000 in 2016, according to his financial disclosure forms. The next year, his debts vanished. When he appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week for his confirmation hearing, his financial disclosure form listed no liabilities aside from his $815,000 mortgage. His disclosures don’t show any large financial gifts, outside income, or even a gambling windfall, as Sotomayor’s had when she hit the jackpot at a Florida casino in 2008 and won $8,283.

 
 

Unfortunately, it’s not at all clear that Garland will take Whitehouse up on any of this, and it’s even less likely that, if he did, anything would come of it. In 2019, numerous Democrats, including Kamala Harris, Julián Castro, and Elizabeth Warren, called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment and Rep. Ayanna Pressley filed a resolution against him, the first step required to open an impeachment proceeding. It didn’t end up going anywhere, but it is important to note that Supreme Court Justices can be removed from the bench via impeachment.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/03/brett-kavanaugh-fake-fbi-investigation

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ishmael said:

Not long after Trump nominated him, The Washington Post reported that since joining the DC Circuit Court of Appeals as a judge in 2006, Kavanaugh had run up a significant amount of debt that often appeared to exceed the value of his cash and investment assets. His debts on three credit cards, as well as a loan against his retirement account, totaled between $60,000 and $200,000 in 2016, according to his financial disclosure forms. The next year, his debts vanished. When he appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week for his confirmation hearing, his financial disclosure form listed no liabilities aside from his $815,000 mortgage. His disclosures don’t show any large financial gifts, outside income, or even a gambling windfall, as Sotomayor’s had when she hit the jackpot at a Florida casino in 2008 and won $8,283.

 
 

Unfortunately, it’s not at all clear that Garland will take Whitehouse up on any of this, and it’s even less likely that, if he did, anything would come of it. In 2019, numerous Democrats, including Kamala Harris, Julián Castro, and Elizabeth Warren, called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment and Rep. Ayanna Pressley filed a resolution against him, the first step required to open an impeachment proceeding. It didn’t end up going anywhere, but it is important to note that Supreme Court Justices can be removed from the bench via impeachment.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/03/brett-kavanaugh-fake-fbi-investigation

IMHO a Supreme Court Justice that is financially compromised ought to be hustled out of there wearing a freshly tarred coat of feathers. But modern times seem to wink at such quaint notions. It would take pretty strong proof, and another turn of the wheel before any Repubs would sign on to admitting the most egregious possible guilt of one of their anointed.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is some irony in that those who support the ban on abortion also object to the rise in the non white population. When abortions are banned only poor people will be affected, same as it always was. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

There is some irony in that those who support the ban on abortion also object to the rise in the non white population. When abortions are banned only poor people will be affected, same as it always was. 

It's like they haven't thought this through. Hard to believe.

From my own selfish perspective I want abortion banned more than I want just about anything politically. It takes this issue from the right and gifts it to the left. That's why I don't think the right is stupid enough to actually go through with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, pusslicker said:

It's like they haven't thought this through. Hard to believe.

From my own selfish perspective I want abortion banned more than I want just about anything politically. It takes this issue from the right and gifts it to the left. That's why I don't think the right is stupid enough to actually go through with this.

oh, it will

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, pusslicker said:

It takes this issue from the right and gifts it to the left. That's why I don't think the right is stupid enough to actually go through with this.

But . . . but . . . if abortion is made illegal, what will the Reich have left to demagogue about ??  

OK, I know, it will still have the ferriner scare, and the socialist/marxist thingy 

but somehow it just won't be the same. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, pusslicker said:

That's why I don't think the right is stupid enough to actually go through with this.

Actually the stupid is enough and its reached critical mass, these folks will go scorched earth on this cuz God said so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

But . . . but . . . if abortion is made illegal, what will the Reich have left to demagogue about ??  

OK, I know, it will still have the ferriner scare, and the socialist/marxist thingy 

but somehow it just won't be the same. 

I have not heard a Republican mention abortion in a while.  I have heard them say "socialism" many times.  I think that might be a bigger right wing base than the abortion crowd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone else thinks this is going to play out terribly for the Evangelical Right Wrong.

Quote

It’s the perfect case to take away abortion rights — and the Supreme Court will hear it in October.

Arising out of a Mississippi law designed specifically to challenge Roe v. Wade, the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, is perfect because it gives the Court’s conservative supermajority a way to eviscerate abortion rights while still, if it wants to, sort of somehow upholding Roe as a precedent — as all the justices swore they would do during their confirmation hearings.

That’s because the law doesn’t ban all abortions outright: it just moves the goalposts. Under Roe, women have the right to control their bodies up until fetal viability, roughly week 24 of pregnancy. The Mississippi law slides that to 15.

What’s magical about 15? Nothing, really. It’s just lower than 24 and higher than 0. But that way, the Supreme Court can uphold the law, severely limit abortion rights, but still maintain the core holding of Roe, which is that the constitution gives women the right to control their own bodies, up to a certain point anyway.

But the Court’s 6-3 conservative majority may not even want to do that. True, Justices Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch all swore to respect Roe as precedent according to the doctrine of stare decisis (“let the decision stand”). But stare decisis isn’t unlimited, and there are well-established guidelines for when the Court can overturn its own precedent.

Moreover, in an unrelated case decided two years ago, Justice Thomas invented new, looser rules for stare decisis that would make overturning Roe even easier. According to Thomas, stare decisis is “at its weakest when we interpret the Constitution” (as in Roe) and depends upon “the quality of the decision’s reasoning; its consistency with related decisions; legal developments since the decision; and reliance on the decision.”

Those are all Thomas’s doctrinal innovations, and they seem custom-tailored to overturn Roe entirely. If he doesn’t try to do so in his Dobbs opinion, I’d be shocked.

The Court will also likely define away the 1992 precedent, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which ruled that any restriction on abortion that placed an “undue burden” on women was unconstitutional. Already, the flabbiness of that standard has led to divergent results. (How much of a burden is undue? What is a “due” burden anyway?) Most likely, a majority of this Court’s justices will either junk Casey or redefine it in a way as to be functionally meaningless.

Based on past opinions and writings by the sitting nine justices, there will only be three – or maybe four, counting Chief Justice Roberts – votes for leaving Roe and Casey as they are today. Roberts might also hold that the 15-week limit is not an “undue burden,” thus diluting Casey but preserving Roe, but it’s not clear if anyone else would vote for that.

Most likely, then, the real debate in Dobbs will be between overruling Roe entirely (Thomas), cutting the time limit back from 24 to 15 weeks (maybe Roberts), or replacing the “undue burden” standard with something that lets states control women’s bodies more. And the “swing” votes, if we can call them that, are Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.

It is, of course, a bitter moment for people who think that, in our constitutional democracy, women should be able to control their own bodies.

First, the decision will be made by the three justices put in place by a twice-impeached president-insurrectionist, advised by a religious extremist and abetted by the debasement of the United States Senate. These three justices were trained, vetted and put into place for just this moment, like some Christian Captain America.

Second, one of those justices is sitting in a seat stolen from now-attorney-general Merrick Garland; another has still-unresolved rape allegations against him, with further evidence that emerged after his confirmation; and a third was shoved into a seat still warm from the justice who used to occupy it. It’s appalling.

Third, we’ve seen over the last year that the “pro-life” position is a farce. A majority of Americans who believe it is perfectly fine for the state to control a woman’s body when it contains a pea-sized blastocyst inside of it, also believe it is oppressive and un-American for the state to require people to wear a mask or get a vaccine to prevent a highly contagious and lethal disease.

Sure, women can be forced to be pregnant. But wearing a mask to avoid killing a stranger on the street? Tyranny!

Speaking of tyranny, there’s no doubt that the Christian Right is going to win this round. Roe as we know it will soon be history, even if Roe itself stays on the books.

But Roe will not be the end of this story. As red states’ legislatures outlaw abortion in their 2022 sessions, the “blue” people living within them will respond in the 2022 election. Indeed, they will be galvanized, as we saw in Georgia last year. And no matter how many blue, Black or brown votes these Republican-controlled state legislatures suppress, this anti-woman, anti-humanist, anti-life revolution will backfire.

This year’s abortion revolution will become next year’s albatross around the GOP’s neck.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/with-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization-the-supreme-court-is-ready-to-begin-ending-roe-v-wade?ref=scroll

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pusslicker said:

It's like they haven't thought this through. Hard to believe.

From my own selfish perspective I want abortion banned more than I want just about anything politically. It takes this issue from the right and gifts it to the left. That's why I don't think the right is stupid enough to actually go through with this.

I must assume you are male, why do you want it banned? It's not in Canada and they seem to have no problems. The Evangelicals vote Republican based on that one issue, thus Trump.  I am glad I haven't had to make that decision but also don't feel it is my right to dictate how women choose to deal with it - in civilized countries the only late term ones are to save the mother's life. I have zero problem with that.  If we spent more on education and birth control a lot of women would never be put in the position in even considering it.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pusslicker said:

 I don't think the right is stupid enough to actually go through with this.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing that is too stupid for the right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

I must assume you are male, why do you want it banned? It's not in Canada and they seem to have no problems. The Evangelicals vote Republican based on that one issue, thus Trump.  I am glad I haven't had to make that decision but also don't feel it is my right to dictate how women choose to deal with it - in civilized countries the only late term ones are to save the mother's life. I have zero problem with that.  If we spent more on education and birth control a lot of women would never be put in the position in even considering it.

 

I think pusslicker is thinking that if the Repugnicans actually do ban abortion, it will be a huge gift to the Democrats. Similar to how the Daily Beast article plays out.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nolatom said:

Louisiana passed a couple of years ago a "trigger ban" law.  The defined trigger is if Roe is overturned.  Then bang, the trigger pulled--abortion becomes illegal in the State.  A couple of other Southern states did the same. 

https://liftlouisiana.org/issues/abortion-restrictions

Very roughly speaking, the State is Catholic south, conservative Baptist north..

Utah passed the same kind of bill recently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Get backinyo place, wimminfolk! 

In the past, the echo chamber claimed that nobody liked abortion.

Yet once again, the echo chamber is all broken up that something might restrict the sacred sacrament of abortion. Imagine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

It just shows how deeply the concept of slavery is embedded in old white men.

(and their Belles)

Look, another lefty making casually racist comments. Imagine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

In the past, the echo chamber claimed that nobody liked abortion.

Yet once again, the echo chamber is all broken up that something might restrict the sacred sacrament of abortion. Imagine.

I think you are projecting again. It's a fait accompli. Already done and dusted. All that's left is to watch the women who get illegal abortions die, and the increase of babies abandoned in dumpsters. That's what you wanted, and what you'll get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so I’m going to get slaughtered here, but… I have always thought abortion should be legal, but not for the full nine months. It should be done only in like the first 3 or 4 months. Make the decision to get an abortion or keep it, but do it early. After that have some recourse for doctors to make decisions to abort for the life of the mother or medical reasons.

On the face of it that’s the substance of this lawsuit. Legal for 15 weeks. Putting aside for a moment the fact that the religious right want a full ban and view this as an incremental strategic step, the basic idea of this lawsuit does not seem wrong to me. As long as the evangelicals will settle for nothing less than a ban and the left wants legal abortion on demand right up until the kid is born, this never gets any better. I think both positions are unreasonable.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, loneshark64 said:

and the left wants legal abortion on demand right up until the kid is born, 

That's a pretty damn incorrect view of what the "left" wants. Criminally incorrect.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

That's a pretty damn incorrect view of what the "left" wants. Criminally incorrect.

I do not think I am a criminal. In the 2020 election it was clear most of the field had moved left. Most of the Democratic candidates took the position that pro-choice meant the woman had a choice to do an abortion thru the full term and it was up to her talking to her doctor. That is my understanding of their position. I voted for Biden as an independent but this seemed extreme to me. In the past Obama, Clinton and certainly Jimmy Carter supported appropriate limits.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/11/demcorats-leftward-shift-third-trimester-abortion/

Obama, 2008: I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

uh, nobody moved left. I have been around quite a long time and the middle is where the right used to be. Eisenhower would be laughed out of the party today. Hope this helps.

edit: NOBODY is advocating for late term abortion except in dire cases where the fetus isn't viable and the mother's life is in danger. I would ask for something beyond an opinion but that's all there is.

Also, Reagan wouldn't be welcome in the GOP today either just based on his immigration stance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, loneshark64 said:

I do not think I am a criminal. In the 2020 election it was clear most of the field had moved left. Most of the Democratic candidates took the position that pro-choice meant the woman had a choice to do an abortion thru the full term and it was up to her talking to her doctor. That is my understanding of their position. I voted for Biden as an independent but this seemed extreme to me. In the past Obama, Clinton and certainly Jimmy Carter supported appropriate limits.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/11/demcorats-leftward-shift-third-trimester-abortion/

 

Wouldn’t the guy who won the nomination be a better representative of “the left” than the candidates who didn’t? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, not everybody in the left side of the ledger or every democratic candidate holds identical views. I am not saying that. Rat holing on that is a distraction. Though few of the candidates supported any restriction including Biden.

My point was that in my opinion late term abortions should be banned, with a very strict medical exception. Obama used to  support that. In 1997 Biden said he supported a ban after “viability”. He also supported the Hyde amendment. But in 2020 Biden and Harris supported no restrictions to rights to abortion under RvW, and funding of planned parenthood which supports full term, and funding through Obamacare. He moved his position on these things because otherwise he would not have gotten nominated. And I love Biden, but don’t agree on this.

I think a middle ground is the right thing. If that makes me the antichrist, fine.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 60 years old.

 Over the course of those 60 years, I've paid for 6 abortions. Mostly when I was in my twenties. I'm not proud of that, nor am I ashamed. Neither myself, or my partners were in any way ready or capable, or even interested in raising a child, either together, or alone.

Yes we were impetuous, stupid hormone driven sex maniacs. There's no reason to subject a child to a life of self doubt, and loathing just because their parents got all hot and steamy.

I've known a lot of adopted children over the course of these 60 years. Some of them are well adjusted, adults, with families of their own. Many of them are seriously depressed, and have trouble maintaining personal relationships, and have had this trouble all of their lives.

 I also know women who have gone full term, and given their children up to adoption. They are almost (almost) all completely fucked up and have serious self worth issues.

The fact is that if the people who want to ban abortion, won't pay to raise the children in a happy healthy household, then they are just being plain old hypocrites.

If you want to ban abortion, then raise the welfare rates, and WIC and SNAP. You can't expect your neighbors and grandparents to foot the bill, and GOD knows the CHURCH won't help sluts or their spawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mrleft8 said:

I'm 60 years old.

 Over the course of those 60 years, I've paid for 6 abortions. Mostly when I was in my twenties. I'm not proud of that, nor am I ashamed. Neither myself, or my partners were in any way ready or capable, or even interested in raising a child, either together, or alone.

Yes we were impetuous, stupid hormone driven sex maniacs. There's no reason to subject a child to a life of self doubt, and loathing just because their parents got all hot and steamy.

I've known a lot of adopted children over the course of these 60 years. Some of them are well adjusted, adults, with families of their own. Many of them are seriously depressed, and have trouble maintaining personal relationships, and have had this trouble all of their lives.

 I also know women who have gone full term, and given their children up to adoption. They are almost (almost) all completely fucked up and have serious self worth issues.

The fact is that if the people who want to ban abortion, won't pay to raise the children in a happy healthy household, then they are just being plain old hypocrites.

If you want to ban abortion, then raise the welfare rates, and WIC and SNAP. You can't expect your neighbors and grandparents to foot the bill, and GOD knows the CHURCH won't help sluts or their spawn!

Once they are out of the womb, the god-botherers just want them to die quickly so they don't take up any resources.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, loneshark64 said:

Look, not everybody in the left side of the ledger or every democratic candidate holds identical views. I am not saying that. Rat holing on that is a distraction. Though few of the candidates supported any restriction including Biden.

My point was that in my opinion late term abortions should be banned, with a very strict medical exception. Obama used to  support that. In 1997 Biden said he supported a ban after “viability”. He also supported the Hyde amendment. But in 2020 Biden and Harris supported no restrictions to rights to abortion under RvW, and funding of planned parenthood which supports full term, and funding through Obamacare. He moved his position on these things because otherwise he would not have gotten nominated. And I love Biden, but don’t agree on this.

I think a middle ground is the right thing. If that makes me the antichrist, fine.

I don't know how long your Alzheimer's has been going on, but late term abortion has been illegal since forever, except for medical reasons.

Planned parenthood does not perform "full term abortions".

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

edit: NOBODY is advocating for late term abortion except in dire cases where the fetus isn't viable and the mother's life is in danger. I would ask for something beyond an opinion but that's all there is.

Great then we agree. Let’s ban it after 15 or 20 weeks, with a tight medical Exception, which is what this lawsuit is about. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, loneshark64 said:

Look, not everybody in the left side of the ledger or every democratic candidate holds identical views. I am not saying that. Rat holing on that is a distraction. Though few of the candidates supported any restriction including Biden.

My point was that in my opinion late term abortions should be banned, with a very strict medical exception. Obama used to  support that. In 1997 Biden said he supported a ban after “viability”. He also supported the Hyde amendment. But in 2020 Biden and Harris supported no restrictions to rights to abortion under RvW, and funding of planned parenthood which supports full term, and funding through Obamacare. He moved his position on these things because otherwise he would not have gotten nominated. And I love Biden, but don’t agree on this.

I think a middle ground is the right thing. If that makes me the antichrist, fine.

I'm not sure that you have Biden's position quite right. That sounds closer to the position that VP Pence ascribed to President Biden, but...

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/oct/09/mike-pence/fact-checking-pences-claim-democrats-and-abortion-/

And Roe v. Wade allows states to regulate access to abortion after viability unless abortion was necessary in appropriate medical judgment.

Isn't the law of the land the middle ground? 

 

Shouldn't this be a Stite's Rats issue? Here's how each of the stites handles it. Which stite has it right, and isn't it possible that all of them do, for their population? 

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/gestational-limit-abortions/ 

 

This smells like a wedge issue to me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, loneshark64 said:

I do not think I am a criminal. In the 2020 election it was clear most of the field had moved left. Most of the Democratic candidates took the position that pro-choice meant the woman had a choice to do an abortion thru the full term 

That is such bullshit.

find one major national candidate, say top 3-5 who called for that. Certainly not Uncle Joe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

6 hours ago, bridhb said:

I have not heard a Republican mention abortion in a while.  I have heard them say "socialism" many times.  I think that might be a bigger right wing base than the abortion crowd.

It may not energize the Christian scum anymore, but I think it would energize women on the left. I think enthusiasm on the left is sorely missing and this would help. That is why I think it would be a huge mistake for the deplorables.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

That is such bullshit.

find one major national candidate, say top 3-5 who called for that. Certainly not Uncle Joe.

Read up, bub. Go read what Bernie said when asked the question in the debate for starters.

You guys are funny. You’re against the restrictions in this lawsuit. But say it’s already restricted everywhere and everybody already agrees it should be. 

And I’m the one with Alzheimer’s?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, loneshark64 said:

Read up, bub. Go read what Bernie said when asked the question in the debate for starters.

You guys are funny. You’re against the restrictions in this lawsuit. But say it’s already restricted everywhere and everybody already agrees it should be. 

And I’m the one with Alzheimer’s?

 

Some cites would help. Show us someone saying what you claim they said. It isn’t our responsibility to research your claims, it is yours. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bpm57 said:

In the past, the echo chamber claimed that nobody liked abortion.

Yet once again, the echo chamber is all broken up that something might restrict the sacred sacrament of abortion. Imagine.

This is why you're a dickhead.

Nobody likes abortion.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, loneshark64 said:

Read up, bub. Go read what Bernie said when asked the question in the debate for starters.

You guys are funny. You’re against the restrictions in this lawsuit. But say it’s already restricted everywhere and everybody already agrees it should be. 

And I’m the one with Alzheimer’s?

 

So if the lawsuit doesn't bring anything new to the table, why pursue it?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Some cites would help. Show us someone saying what you claim they said. It isn’t our responsibility to research your claims, it is yours. 

On PA/SA ? Shirley you jeste !! 

Why that would make flamin' durn near impossible !!  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

On PA/SA ? Shirley you jeste !! 

Why that would make flamin' durn near impossible !!  

It separates the people legitimately seeking discourse and/or honest argument from the bullshitters and/or sea lions. You could see this one a mile away. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Some cites would help. Show us someone saying what you claim they said. It isn’t our responsibility to research your claims, it is yours. 

I put the Washington Post link in earlier. There are many examples. Each time he is asked specifically whether he supports restrictions on abortion after 15 or 20 weeks he says he is very strongly pro choice and it is up to a woman in consultation with her doctor not government restrictions. 
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/09/viral-image/fact-checking-bernie-sanders-abortion-position/

Here he says essentially the same thing in 2016>

CBS News March 7 2017 “While both candidates -- like most Democrats -- are both well known as in favor of abortion rights, they gave slightly different answers on the question of late-term abortions. 

Asked generally whether abortion should ever be illegal, Sen. Bernie Sanders said, "I happen to believe that it is wrong for the government to be telling a woman what to be doing with her own body."

He chided Republicans who broadly oppose government interference in people's personal lives, "but somehow on this issue they want to tell every woman in America what she should do with her body."

Asked more specifically if he would support restrictions on abortions for pregnancies farther along than five months, Sanders simply responded, "I am very strongly pro-choice. That is a choice to be made between a woman, her physician and her family."

Clinton, by contrast, noted that she has gone on the record as in favor of some "late-pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother."

Buttigieg one example, 2019: “I think the dialogue has gotten so caught up on where you draw the line, that we’ve gotten away from the fundamental question of who gets to draw the line. And I trust women to draw the line when it’s their own health.”

Harris was the same. Others danced around and did not answer the question. Obama and Clinton just straight up answered the question saying yes, rules against this make sense. 

I am not going to waste all day on cites to educate you.

The fact is the RvW had a trimester model. Third term abortions almost never happened. Then the 1992 SC case redrew the line to “viability”, overturned the trimester framework with the fuzzy undue burden standard, which nobody agrees on, and left regulation up to the states. Clusterfuck. Some states have strong restrictions and some have very minimal, and now with medical technology the viability line is fuzzy and closer to 20 weeks than it used to be. Democratic leadership’s position used to be abortion should be legal to viability, a line that moved in, and they don’t like where that line is now. This is why you had activitists pushing the dem candidates to change and support no government limits, just leave it up to the woman and her doctor in a private discussion. In some states like NY this is what we have now, essentially no govt restrictions. In other states you basically can’t get an abortion, and both types of states are passing asinine laws they hope will end up in the Supreme Court.

The reality is we’re talking about like 1% of abortions this late, and a few hundred private clinics that will do this in a dozen states, but why not clarify the laws?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, loneshark64 said:

The fact is the RvW had a trimester model. Third term abortions almost never happened. Then the 1992 SC case redrew the line to “viability”, overturned the trimester framework with the fuzzy undue burden standard, which nobody agrees on, and left regulation up to the states. Some states have strong restrictions and some have very minimal. Now with medical technology the viability line is fuzzy and closer to 20 weeks than it used to be. So some on the left want a different standard - no government involvement. In some states like NY this is what we have now. Democratic leaderships position used to be abortion should be legal to viability, a line that moved in, and now many democratic leaders are arguing for no government limits, just leave it up to the woman and her doctor in a private discussion.

Couple issues with this statement.  "So some on the left want a different standard".

  1. It isn't just people on the left.
  2. This isn't something 'new'.  A group of people have always wanted this.

Next point - it makes sense.  As medical abilities have improved, the goalpost of viability has moved.  In fact, we're likely not all that far away from a couple cells being viable (in a surrogate mom).  While I don't think the Republicans would ever manage to push it THAT far, it's clear that the viability argument isn't an argument any more, and was more an argument with a roughly-defined time that made it easier to discuss.  It's now arbitrary.

The point is, was, and always shall be whether the state has the right to tell women what to do with their body and where that line should be drawn.  And until we can exorcise the demon of the magical sky fairy and his army of minions who have been told to procreate as fast as possible to swell the ranks (god I love that irony), it will be a battle that rational thinking humans will have to keep fighting.

I think it's time folk start putting crosses on their lawn for all the atrocities Christian zealots have committed.... you know, just to put the whole abortion thing in perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Couple issues with this statement.  "So some on the left want a different standard".

  1. It isn't just people on the left.
  2. This isn't something 'new'.  A group of people have always wanted this.

Next point - it makes sense.  As medical abilities have improved, the goalpost of viability has moved.  In fact, we're likely not all that far away from a couple cells being viable (in a surrogate mom).  While I don't think the Republicans would ever manage to push it THAT far, it's clear that the viability argument isn't an argument any more, and was more an argument with a roughly-defined time that made it easier to discuss.  It's now arbitrary.

The point is, was, and always shall be whether the state has the right to tell women what to do with their body and where that line should be drawn.  And until we can exorcise the demon of the magical sky fairy and his army of minions who have been told to procreate as fast as possible to swell the ranks (god I love that irony), it will be a battle that rational thinking humans will have to keep fighting.

I think it's time folk start putting crosses on their lawn for all the atrocities Christian zealots have committed.... you know, just to put the whole abortion thing in perspective.

I don’t disagree with this. The law and the role of the states is unclear. For the record my views are not based on being a Christian. I am not a Christian or religious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, loneshark64 said:

I put the Washington Post link in earlier. There are many examples. Each time he is asked specifically whether he supports restrictions on abortion after 15 or 20 weeks he says he is very strongly pro choice and it is up to a woman in consultation with her doctor not government restrictions. 
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/09/viral-image/fact-checking-bernie-sanders-abortion-position/

Here he says essentially the same thing in 2016>

CBB News March 7 2017 “While both candidates -- like most Democrats -- are both well known as in favor of abortion rights, they gave slightly different answers on the question of late-term abortions. 

Asked generally whether abortion should ever be illegal, Sen. Bernie Sanders said, "I happen to believe that it is wrong for the government to be telling a woman what to be doing with her own body."

He chided Republicans who broadly oppose government interference in people's personal lives, "but somehow on this issue they want to tell every woman in America what she should do with her body."

Asked more specifically if he would support restrictions on abortions for pregnancies farther along than five months, Sanders simply responded, "I am very strongly pro-choice. That is a choice to be made between a woman, her physician and her family."

Clinton, by contrast, noted that she has gone on the record as in favor of some "late-pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother."

Buttigieg one example, 2019: “I think the dialogue has gotten so caught up on where you draw the line, that we’ve gotten away from the fundamental question of who gets to draw the line. And I trust women to draw the line when it’s their own health.”

Harris was the same. Others danced around and did not answer the question. Obama and Clinton just straight up answered the question saying yes, rules against this make sense. 

I am not going to waste all day on cites to educate you.

The fact is the RvW had a trimester model. Third term abortions almost never happened. Then the 1992 SC case redrew the line to “viability”, overturned the trimester framework with the fuzzy undue burden standard, which nobody agrees on, and left regulation up to the states. Clusterfuck. Some states have strong restrictions and some have very minimal, and now with medical technology the viability line is fuzzy and closer to 20 weeks than it used to be. Democratic leadership’s position used to be abortion should be legal to viability, a line that moved in, and they don’t like where that line is now. This is why you had activitists pushing the dem candidates to many democratic candidates to change and support no government limits, just leave it up to the woman and her doctor in a private discussion. In some states like NY this is what we have now, essentially no govt restrictions. In other states you basically can’t get an abortion, and both types of states are passing asinine laws they hope will end up in the Supreme Court.

The reality is we’re talking about like 1% of abortions this late, and a few hundred private clinics that will do this in a dozen states, but why not clarify the laws?

 

That fleshes it out. Thank you. I struggle with any discussion of “the left” because the democrats really cover the political spectrum. Just look at the senate, where they range from Sen. Sanders to Sen. Manchin. Trying to get them onboard for anything is like herding cats, as President Biden is finding out. Trying to lay anything on the left gets complicated by the difficulty in defining them. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, loneshark64 said:

I put the Washington Post link in earlier. There are many examples. Each time he is asked specifically whether he supports restrictions on abortion after 15 or 20 weeks he says he is very strongly pro choice and it is up to a woman in consultation with her doctor not government restrictions. 
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/09/viral-image/fact-checking-bernie-sanders-abortion-position/

Here he says essentially the same thing in 2016>

CBS News March 7 2017 “While both candidates -- like most Democrats -- are both well known as in favor of abortion rights, they gave slightly different answers on the question of late-term abortions. 

Asked generally whether abortion should ever be illegal, Sen. Bernie Sanders said, "I happen to believe that it is wrong for the government to be telling a woman what to be doing with her own body."

He chided Republicans who broadly oppose government interference in people's personal lives, "but somehow on this issue they want to tell every woman in America what she should do with her body."

Asked more specifically if he would support restrictions on abortions for pregnancies farther along than five months, Sanders simply responded, "I am very strongly pro-choice. That is a choice to be made between a woman, her physician and her family."

Clinton, by contrast, noted that she has gone on the record as in favor of some "late-pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother."

Buttigieg one example, 2019: “I think the dialogue has gotten so caught up on where you draw the line, that we’ve gotten away from the fundamental question of who gets to draw the line. And I trust women to draw the line when it’s their own health.”

Harris was the same. Others danced around and did not answer the question. Obama and Clinton just straight up answered the question saying yes, rules against this make sense. 

I am not going to waste all day on cites to educate you.

The fact is the RvW had a trimester model. Third term abortions almost never happened. Then the 1992 SC case redrew the line to “viability”, overturned the trimester framework with the fuzzy undue burden standard, which nobody agrees on, and left regulation up to the states. Clusterfuck. Some states have strong restrictions and some have very minimal, and now with medical technology the viability line is fuzzy and closer to 20 weeks than it used to be. Democratic leadership’s position used to be abortion should be legal to viability, a line that moved in, and they don’t like where that line is now. This is why you had activitists pushing the dem candidates to change and support no government limits, just leave it up to the woman and her doctor in a private discussion. In some states like NY this is what we have now, essentially no govt restrictions. In other states you basically can’t get an abortion, and both types of states are passing asinine laws they hope will end up in the Supreme Court.

The reality is we’re talking about like 1% of abortions this late, and a few hundred private clinics that will do this in a dozen states, but why not clarify the laws?

 

Senator Sanders repeatedly stating he believes the choice is up to the woman is NOT the same as "the left wants legal abortion on demand right up until the kid is born".

Link to post
Share on other sites

The politics of it are less interesting to me (sorry, I know this is PA) than what's the right thing to do.   I happen to think the Roe decision got it about right.  There's no perfect or near perfect result.  Was it legislating from the bench?  Probably.   So was Brown versus Board of Education.  I'd hate to see a Court vote to "reconsider" Brown.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire issue is the best Look Over Here distraction ever dreamed up. How is the abortion controversy is even one of the top ten issues on the nation's to-do list?A miracle of political marketing.  Something in it for everybody to love. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

Senator Sanders repeatedly stating he believes the choice is up to the woman is NOT the same as "the left wants legal abortion on demand right up until the kid is born".

Well there is that problem....

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Senator Sanders repeatedly stating he believes the choice is up to the woman is NOT the same as "the left wants legal abortion on demand right up until the kid is born".

That is fair.

Occasionally on PA my choice of words is imprecise and is not characteristic of a calm and focused demeanor.

Sanders (and some peers) are clear though that they want zero govt restrictions or involvement. This is a bridge too far for me. I think we should get back closer to RvW before the subsequent rulings, which was pretty clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, loneshark64 said:

That is fair.

Occasionally on PA my choice of words is imprecise and is not characteristic of a calm and focused demeanor.

Sanders (and some peers) are clear though that they want zero govt restrictions or involvement. This is a bridge too far for me. I think we should get back closer to RvW before the subsequent rulings, which was pretty clear.

Apart from making sure procedures and medicines are safe, why should the government be involved in personal health issues?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, loneshark64 said:

That is fair.

Occasionally on PA my choice of words is imprecise and is not characteristic of a calm and focused demeanor.

Sanders (and some peers) are clear though that they want zero govt restrictions or involvement. This is a bridge too far for me. I think we should get back closer to RvW before the subsequent rulings, which was pretty clear.

Just another big-gov't guy who wants gov't to make personal decisions. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Apart from making sure procedures and medicines are safe, why should the government be involved in personal health issues?

Well… at the risk of digging myself deeper. Some people view a third trimester abortion of a viable fetus with a serious but survivable abnormality as murder and some people do not, and view it as a personal health decision. Others see it as a nasty grey area. That is the crux.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, loneshark64 said:

Well… at the risk of digging myself deeper. Some people view a third trimester abortion of a viable fetus with a serious but survivable abnormality as murder and some people do not, and view it as a personal health decision. That is the crux.

Those people can discuss their views with their doctor and act accordingly.

Why should an outsiders view be relevant?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, loneshark64 said:

Well… at the risk of digging myself deeper. Some people view a third trimester abortion of a viable fetus with a serious but survivable abnormality as murder and some people do not, and view it as a personal health decision. Others see it as a nasty grey area. That is the crux.

I'm sure there are examples of a viable 3rd trimester abortion, but I've never seen one actually documented. I'm sure you have a bunch, want to share?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ease the sheet. said:

Those people can discuss their views with their doctor and act accordingly.

Why should an outsiders view be relevant?

Clearly, a christian-sharia-law based judge can help that Doctor/Patient out. Clearly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I'm sure there are examples of a viable 3rd trimester abortion, but I've never seen one actually documented. I'm sure you have a bunch, want to share?

When you don’t like something you give a rock fetch and say go collect a bunch of citations and data and post it. Then you get it and say “Christian sharia law you’re a dickhead.” Whatevs. I’m done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, loneshark64 said:

When you don’t like something you say go collect a bunch of citations and data and post it. Then you get it and say “Christian sharia law you’re a dickhead.” Whatevs. I’m done.

It's a hot kitchen.

Patience does get rewarded.....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, loneshark64 said:

Well… at the risk of digging myself deeper. Some people view a third trimester abortion of a viable fetus with a serious but survivable abnormality as murder and some people do not, and view it as a personal health decision. Others see it as a nasty grey area. That is the crux.

The number of those is amazingly small.  Far smaller than anti-choice activists would have us believe.

Similar to previous years, in 2018, women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions (57.7%). The majority of abortions in 2018 took place early in gestation: 92.2% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.9%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation.

Cite.

That said, why are we discussing "late term abortion", when the case being argued specifies 15 weeks?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

The number of those is amazingly small.  Far smaller than anti-choice activists would have us believe.

Similar to previous years, in 2018, women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions (57.7%). The majority of abortions in 2018 took place early in gestation: 92.2% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.9%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation.

Cite.

That said, why are we discussing "late term abortion", when the case being argued specifies 15 weeks?

Gotta shift those goalposts when the kitchen gets hot. Or sumthin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, loneshark64 said:

When you don’t like something you give a rock fetch and say go collect a bunch of citations and data and post it. Then you get it and say “Christian sharia law you’re a dickhead.” Whatevs. I’m done.

Saying that someone holds a position is meaningless without a citation demonstrating that a person took that position. For example, there is nothing wrong with looking at a statement along the lines of "the left wants legal abortion on demand right up until the kid is born" and asking "who said that?". Getting offended by being asked to support a statement like that gets into sea lion territory. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Saying that someone holds a position is meaningless without a citation demonstrating that a person took that position. For example, there is nothing wrong with looking at a statement along the lines of "the left wants legal abortion on demand right up until the kid is born" and asking "who said that?". Getting offended by being asked to support a statement like that gets into sea lion territory. 

Dammit why did I look again?

I didn’t wholesale invent out of thin air the notion that these occur. “IMHO water is wet.  “Need a citation?

And anyway Bus Driver went and did the work demonstrating that they do in fact happen. Using his numbers, 1% over 21 weeks is 6200.

Now all the way out, boat is in the water and this is tedious as fuck.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, loneshark64 said:

Dammit why did I look again?

I didn’t wholesale invent out of thin air the notion that these occur. “IMHO water is wet.  “Need a citation?

And anyway Bus Driver went and did the work demonstrating that they do in fact happen. Using his numbers, 1% over 21 weeks is 6200.

Now all the way out, boat is in the water and this is tedious as fuck.

I'm unclear who in the gov't is going to step in and review the person and their Drs decision. Do we outsource this to Catholic Charities?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

I'm unclear who in the gov't is going to step in and review the person and their Drs decision. Do we outsource this to Catholic Charities?

Twitter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, loneshark64 said:

Dammit why did I look again?

I didn’t wholesale invent out of thin air the notion that these occur. “IMHO water is wet.  “Need a citation?

And anyway Bus Driver went and did the work demonstrating that they do in fact happen. Using his numbers, 1% over 21 weeks is 6200.

Now all the way out, boat is in the water and this is tedious as fuck.

21 weeks is NOT "right up until the kid is born".

Maybe you should learn about why people make that choice.

Abortion In The Third Trimester: A Rare Decision Now In The Political Spotlight

Link to post
Share on other sites

Late term is stuff like this:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/late-term-abortion-rape_n_5c630b8de4b0a8731aeabbd6

The doctor came to us and spread the ultrasound pictures across the table. She pointed to darkness where gray brain matter ought to be. She called it hydranencephaly, a congenital defect in which the brain fails to develop either cerebral hemisphere, instead filling with cerebrospinal fluid. The fetus continued to experience development because the brain stem was still intact, but she would be born blind, deaf, completely cognitively stunted, prone to seizures, diabetes insipidus, insomnia, hypothermia and more. The list of every agonizing disorder she would suffer was tremendous.

“This condition is not compatible with life,” she said with the sort of neutrality someone uses when they are a spectator to disaster.

My mother asked what our options were, but I was already eight months along and would have to see this pregnancy through to the end. At the time, abortions were allowed in Alabama “up to the stage of fetal viability, usually between 24 and 26 weeks gestation.” It was already too late for me. Even if I was able to go out of state to seek out the possibility of a “late-term abortion,” I would still be obstructed by time, paperwork, politics and money.  

“I wish I could do more,” she said. “I know how wrong this must seem to you.”

The words that came to my mind were “cruel” and “inhumane.” I had already suffered one trauma. Was that not enough? I was so fragile, hanging on to my life by a thread, desperate for some sense of normality, and still more was now being taken from me in the most visceral sense.

 

Also note this poor girl was raped to start with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Apart from making sure procedures and medicines are safe, why should the government men be involved in pregnancy/birth health issues?

FIFY

I think that men who are morally opposed to abortion should not be forced to have one. I have never met any person of either gender who was in favor of abortion.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Late term is stuff like this:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/late-term-abortion-rape_n_5c630b8de4b0a8731aeabbd6

The doctor came to us and spread the ultrasound pictures across the table. She pointed to darkness where gray brain matter ought to be. She called it hydranencephaly, a congenital defect in which the brain fails to develop either cerebral hemisphere, instead filling with cerebrospinal fluid. The fetus continued to experience development because the brain stem was still intact, but she would be born blind, deaf, completely cognitively stunted, prone to seizures, diabetes insipidus, insomnia, hypothermia and more. The list of every agonizing disorder she would suffer was tremendous.

“This condition is not compatible with life,” she said with the sort of neutrality someone uses when they are a spectator to disaster.

My mother asked what our options were, but I was already eight months along and would have to see this pregnancy through to the end. At the time, abortions were allowed in Alabama “up to the stage of fetal viability, usually between 24 and 26 weeks gestation.” It was already too late for me. Even if I was able to go out of state to seek out the possibility of a “late-term abortion,” I would still be obstructed by time, paperwork, politics and money.  

“I wish I could do more,” she said. “I know how wrong this must seem to you.”

The words that came to my mind were “cruel” and “inhumane.” I had already suffered one trauma. Was that not enough? I was so fragile, hanging on to my life by a thread, desperate for some sense of normality, and still more was now being taken from me in the most visceral sense.

 

Also note this poor girl was raped to start with.

That was very similar to our story, but ours was amniotic sack syndrome. the words "Not compatible with life" are pretty hard to take. Our options were to carry till miscarriage or birth and almost instantaneous death (our baby had no stomach, liver or pretty much anything needed for digestion) or to abort.  Either of the first two carried real risks to my wife. I knew I had already lost the child, and there are a lot of folks who are happy to say I should've risked my wife as well. Cause God, or something.

 

 

Amniotic band syndrome (ABS) is a rare birth defect in which bands of tissue inside the sac of fluid that surrounds a baby in the womb tangle around the baby's body causing injury. This happens when there is a rupture in the inside sac (amnion).

Link to post
Share on other sites

so we do way with Legal abortions,!

- it goes back in the alley with clothes hangers

-the unwanted babies then die of hunger and no health care , GOPers are against food stamps and Medicaid, shit we already lead the free world in infant death 

-then we don't educate them , so they become crooks and drug dealers so the cops can shot them.

sound like it solves the problem 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Not for nothing said:

so we do way with Legal abortions,!

- it goes back in the alley with clothes hangers

-the unwanted babies then die of hunger and no health care , GOPers are against food stamps and Medicaid, shit we already lead the free world in infant death 

-then we don't educate them , so they become crooks and drug dealers so the cops can shot them.

sound like it solves the problem 

Only for the poor and unwashed...not for the Best Americans and their crotch fruit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there was this one, God-Bothering dipshits kill off pregnant woman having a miscarriage.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

Savita Halappanavar's family said she asked several times for her pregnancy to be terminated because she had severe back pain and was miscarrying.

Her husband told the BBC that it was refused because there was a foetal heartbeat.

Ms Halappanavar's death, on 28 October, is the subject of two investigations.

An autopsy carried out two days after her death found she had died from septicaemia, according to the Irish Times.

Ms Halappanavar, who was 31 and originally from India, was a dentist.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Only for the poor and unwashed...not for the Best Americans and their crotch fruit. 

It seems many of the folks way over on the right, who wish to invoke their own version of Christian Sharia law on the US, don't believe their elk have abortions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

That was very similar to our story, but ours was amniotic sack syndrome. the words "Not compatible with life" are pretty hard to take. Our options were to carry till miscarriage or birth and almost instantaneous death (our baby had no stomach, liver or pretty much anything needed for digestion) or to abort.  Either of the first two carried real risks to my wife. I knew I had already lost the child, and there are a lot of folks who are happy to say I should've risked my wife as well. Cause God, or something.

 

 

Amniotic band syndrome (ABS) is a rare birth defect in which bands of tissue inside the sac of fluid that surrounds a baby in the womb tangle around the baby's body causing injury. This happens when there is a rupture in the inside sac (amnion).

That is so sad. Sorry to hear that :(

Link to post
Share on other sites