Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

If I’m seeking an abortion, it stands to reason I’m not interested in hearing anything about how safe or unsafe in anyone else’s opinion it would be to give birth. That simply doesn’t enter the conversation as far as I’d be concerned. I’m only interested in hearing my options and the risks involved in abortion, and to that end your thought experiment is meaningless as it doesn’t map very well to reality where a number of options are possible, all with varying outcomes depending upon the circumstances involved.

And you move the goalposts yet again. None of that is at all relevant to either your ridiculous claim that abortion is not safe, or my replies to you.

I didn’t move the goalposts. They were grand where they were when the discussion was about abortion. Your wanting to talk about the risks of continuing a pregnancy and giving birth, is an entirely different conversation. In your thought experiment, you present only two options, whereas in reality, there aren’t only two options.

You’re setting a fairly low bar if referring to anyone as an idiot constitutes mockery -

making fun of someone or something in a cruel way

If that’s the level you’re operating on, I’d sooner just not be arsed even attempting to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion. It’s why I bowed out of the multiculturalism thread for example when it went to shìt, ruined by idiots who have overtaken what was at least an honest discussion up until recently.

Maybe women should protest by not going to America as a tourist soend your money in a country that respects women's rights

That seems highly impractical, perhaps a better suggestion would be for the wealthy women of America who claim to care about women’s rights, to part with some of their considerable wealth to support women and girls growing up in grinding poverty in their own country, instead of trying to absolve themselves of any responsibility by coming out with this nonsense -

At her press conference Thursday, Pelosi said the health decisions women make "don’t belong to politicians in Washington, D.C. or in state capitols or in the Supreme Court of the United States. They belong to a woman, her family, her God, her doctor, her loved ones," she said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna38369

To coin a phrase I have no doubt Ms. Pelosi will be familiar with - 50 years too late, and billions of dollars in federal funding too short.

Irony meter just exploded! 🤣

Can you do the honest thing and just admit that your silly claim that abortion is not safe was a complete and utter falsehood?

I won't be holding my breath!

A major US pharmacy chain has seen a huge spike in cashiers and pharmacists who now declare faith based objections to filling everything from condoms to birth control

one woman ordered a pregnancy test and instead during a national shortage of such, received a “care package” in the mail containing a pacifier and multiple bottles of baby formula. The woman had no Fallopian tubes but was told by her doctor to test anyway. Another woman was first lied to that she had run out of her prescription refills, only to be sent back to her doctor by the store, to confirm she had the refills and when she sent the script in again they changed their story to out of stock

There’s no irony in what I said; there is an irony however in your trying to get me to say to something I don’t believe is true, as if that’d be me being honest.

That’s what I mean by an attempt to absolve themselves of any responsibility by claiming it is individuals are responsible for their actions, as though individuals actions aren’t governed by laws made by politicians. It’s nonsense because Pelosi knows what she’s saying simply isn’t true, but she has to say it because she needs to appeal to as wide a voter base as possible, as opposed to just appealing to women voters. That’s why she comes out with this sort of rhetoric for example -

In the MSNBC interview, Pelosi challenged the notion of imposing her personal views on abortion on others and highlighted Cordileone’s pronouncements on other issues, such as gay rights.

“We just have to be prayerful, we have to be respectful. I come from a largely pro-life Italian American Catholic family, so I respect people’s views about that, but I don’t respect us foisting it onto others,” she said. “Now our archbishop has been vehemently against LGBTQ rights. He led the way in some of the issues, an initiative on the ballot in California. So this decision … is very dangerous in the lives of so many of the American people. They’re not consistent with the Gospel of Matthew.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/24/pelosi-abortion-catholic-church/

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused Republicans of attempting to roll back the clock for American women by curtailing access to birth control, but declared "we are not going back."

"This is their moment. Clarence Thomas has made that clear, right down to the fundamentals of privacy they want to erase," Pelosi said of Republicans. "With this passage, Democrats will make clear we will never quit in the fight against the outrageous right-wing assault on freedom."

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/birth-control-contraception-bill-pass-house-vote/

What’s interesting is the way Ms. Pelosi refers to “the outrageous right-wing assault on freedom”, while supporting a bill which is intended to override religious freedom, something which her right-wing counterparts value far more than the Democrats ideas of individual rights. It appears that Democrats are more determined than ever to try and make out that women don’t have minds of their own, that they need to portray women as victims of an oppressive ideology, when that simply isn’t an accurate reflection of reality. It’s not gender that divides anyone, it’s their individual and collective beliefs based around their own particular circumstances -

https://time.com/6191636/abortion-midterms-democrats-suburban-white-women/

Nancy, above most people in the US, should know, and it’s precisely for this reason that she chooses to absolve herself of any responsibility for her actions by suggesting that a woman’s decisions are a private matter between her and “her God” (and it’s not just a nod to secularism in that Nancy recognises that women aren’t all of the same faith or none), it’s precisely because Nancy doesn’t even believe herself what she is saying, but she knows that it matters that other people believe in what she is saying.

It’s not nuts, it’s just politics -

https://religionandpolitics.org/2022/06/21/banning-nancy-pelosi-from-communion-may-have-backfired/

Expect reams of irrelevant nonsense as an "answer".

I’ve answered Hotblack’s question numerous times already - abortion is safer than carrying a fetus to term. My original point, and it still stands, is that I don’t see what one has to do with the other. They’re two completely different and separate circumstances. There is no comparison between them as far as I’m concerned. It’s a pointless argument which doesn’t support anything. If it’s intent is to argue in favour of abortion, it’s a piss poor argument.

I did of course see where Ms. Pelosi was able to afford to jet off to Rome, days after her whole shtick telling women abortion was a decision between themselves and their God. I don’t imagine every woman is in a position of power and influence that they have their own personal audience with the head of what you refer to as the Criminal Enterprise. The whole thing strikes me as a bit of a willy-waving contest between Ms. Pelosi and the Archbishop tbh, and he came off the worst of it even before Ms. Pelosi rubbed his nose in it by cosying up to the Pope.

I’m referring to this bill -

https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20220718/BILLS-117HR8373IH.pdf

This part in particular -

SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY AND PREEMPTION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—

(1) GENERAL APPLICATION.—Except as stated under subsection (b), this Act supersedes and applies to the law of the Federal Government and each State government, and the implementation of such law, whether statutory, common law, or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the date of enactment of this Act, and neither the Federal Government nor any State government shall administer, implement, or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law that conflicts with any provision of this Act, notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.).

Notwithstanding meaning ‘in spite of’, so in spite of any other provisions including anything in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, nothing shall supersede the provisions of this particular Act.

@One eyed Jack

All members of Congress can 'afford' to go on official visits. They're a whole Branch of the United States government. Minority members, too, are not beholden to the President or anything, they can go wherever they please. Their travel is regulated by House/Senate rules.

For example, Pelosi is also on planning to visit Taiwan, a decision the WH is all but policy bound to oppose because it will undermine diplomacy with China and may jeopardize security in the Taiwan Strait. However, all Biden can do is wag his finger at it, the Executive Branch has no leash on Congress to go where they want, even (and especially rather) when it is not what the POTUS wants.

All members of Congress can 'afford' to go on official visits.

I don’t think anyone was disputing that though? The point I was making was in response to being asked whether I saw that Pope Frank gave communion to Speaker Pelosi when she visited Rome? He didn’t, but I wasn’t gonna quibble -

While Francis presided over the Mass, he did not distribute Communion himself and Pelosi received the sacrament from one of the many priests who distributed it. From the time he was archbishop in Buenos Aires, Francis has rarely distributed Communion, precisely to prevent the sacrament from becoming politicized.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/29/1108548298/pelosi-vatican-communion-abortion-rights

Of course it has an impact on people’s religious freedom if it mandates that for example, I, if I were a pharmacist, have to provide you with contraception, in spite of the fact that I have a moral objection to the provision of contraception, so I don’t provide it to anyone, and I’m excluded from receiving federal funds because I don’t provide it. It’s not that I’m imposing my religious beliefs on you, or discriminating against you personally - I just don’t stock contraceptives, and I don’t sell them to anyone. It’s nothing to do with your personal religious convictions.

(I’m tempted to make a joke about a bun in the oven, as that reasoning smells awfully like the bakery cases, but I’ll resist, that’d be inappropriate 🤨)

The federal government doesn’t have the right though to discriminate against any organisation from receiving federal funding because it’s religious, and they’re limited in just how far they can impose restrictions and conditions on federal funding.

Also it’s not so much the freedom of speech part of the First Amendment is relevant here, but the extent and limitations of the Free Exercise Clause -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause

That’s fine and dandy for anyone who already agrees with you, but it’s not any kind of a compelling argument for anyone who doesn’t, and there are many pharmacists in the United States who don’t, who cannot be compelled to provide contraceptives, and are within their rights to disagree with the idea that contraceptives are part of sexual health or that they should provide healthcare according to your ideas of what constitutes healthcare.

It’s not really anything like a Muslim becoming a priest and then complaining they have to preach the Bible, and simply stating that a pharmacy has been a place for condoms etc for decades and that people shouldn’t get a job and refuse, is about as useful as someone declaring that abstinence is part of healthcare and don’t have sex. Such silliness ignores the fact that pharmacists don’t only exist to provide contraceptives, they provide all sorts of health related services besides, in accordance with whatever laws are applicable.

In circumstances where there is a conflict of rights such as the example of pharmacists refusing to provide contraceptives due to their religious convictions, and the States laws mandating that pharmacists are limited in their refusal to provide emergency contraceptives, it isn’t nearly as simple as an employee of the State refusing to issue marriage certificates based upon their religious convictions.

Depending upon who’s sitting on the bench of the US Supreme Court, it’s their interpretations will determine whether or not either the States or a Federal mandate is hostile to religious freedom. It’s not as though the issue hasn’t been brewing a while now -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-wont-hear-challenge-to-rule-that-pharmacies-dispense-emergency-contraception/2016/06/28/dd1f6c50-3d3a-11e6-84e8-1580c7db5275_story.html

https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/pharmacists-refusing-to-fill-spark-national-controversy

Except these pharmacies like Walgreens and CVS, DO STOCK the drug.

And they also have policies which permit employees to refuse to fulfil prescriptions on moral or religious grounds -

"Our policies are designed to ensure we meet the needs of our patients and customers while respecting the religious and moral beliefs of our team members," Walgreens spokesperson to NBC News. "The instances are rare, however when a team member has a moral or religious conviction about completing a transaction, they are required to refer the customer to another employee or manager on duty who will complete the transaction, which is what occurred in this instance."

https://www.insider.com/walgreens-boycott-grows-as-employees-refuse-to-sell-birth-control-2022-7?amp

Now I could nonchalantly have responded to your point that Walgreens, CVS and even Walmart all stock and sell or fulfil prescriptions for contraceptives, by asking where’s the problem then? And that’d be me being unreasonable, because I think we both understand where the problem is -

Pharmacists being permitted to refuse to sell or supply anyone with a product or service because doing so would, in their mind, constitute a violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs. The requirement that they are required to refer the customer to another employee or a manager, seems like a reasonable compromise IMO.

If an employee refuses a transaction for what clearly is motivated by spite or what amounts to unlawful discrimination, then that’s another matter entirely. That’s being intentionally malicious, like the fake abortion clinics which, ironically enough, are protected under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment -

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/606427673/supreme-court-sides-with-california-anti-abortion-pregnancy-centers

In the case of Stormans Inc v Weisman though, it was pointed out that there were more than 30 other pharmacies within a five mile distance -

Alito observed that the Stormans had been willing to refer customers to other pharmacies, of which there were another 30 within a five-mile distance.  He further said that because of this facilitated referral system, “none of Ralph’s customers has ever been denied timely access to emergency contraceptives.”

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1476/stormans-inc-v-wiesman

The efforts to seek out pharmacies where there are owners or employees with religious objections to providing contraceptives amounts to nothing more than Jessica Yanniv levels of malicious intent to target religious objectors specifically, precisely to force them to do something in violation of their conscience.

If it were about protecting anyone’s right to access contraception, then there are far greater barriers to access and provision than any pharmacists or employees religious objections. One of those issues is pharmacies closing down in rural areas because they can’t afford to continue doing business, or the lack of pharmacies willing to provide products and services to people who can least afford to pay for medical treatment -

https://khn.org/news/article/last-drugstore-how-rural-communities-lose-independent-pharmacies/amp/

https://khn.org/news/article/last-drugstore-chicago-pharmacist-avoids-creating-another-drugstore-desert/amp/

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/07/21/1018483557/contraception-is-free-to-women-except-when-its-not

I don’t blame women who want to avoid using a sandwich bag, but that seems to be the method promoted by Medicaid -

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5607668/

Even on other drugs, women won’t use them -

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-022-07558-6

Those women experiencing grinding poverty are only useful in terms of arguing for greater access to contraceptives and abortion, they’re of no interest to people otherwise, which is why they have historically been ignored, and will continue to be ignored, until otherwise useful -

https://www.history.com/.amp/news/birth-control-pill-history-puerto-rico-enovid

When they say "religious freedom" they really mean their ability to force their religious doctrines onto others. Same old same old.

Ah great so a local pastor could put pressure on local pharmacies to not stock contraceptives and it would be up to the pharmacy whether they wish to take the local church on. Like a weird version of the Footloose movie.

I know the bible can be interpreted in different wsys but im sure i dont remember it explicitly stating thou shalt not sell contraceptives!

Their argument wasn’t based upon whether or not the Bible made any reference to a prohibition on selling contraceptives though. Their argument was based upon the fact that in accordance with their religious beliefs, they believe that it is forbidden for them to be complicit in the taking of a life -

The Stormans family owns Ralph’s Thriftway, a local grocery store and pharmacy in Olympia, Washington. Devout Christians, the Stormans seek to run their busi- ness in accordance with their religious beliefs. Among those beliefs is a conviction that life begins at conception and that preventing the uterine implantation of a fertilized egg is tantamount to abortion. Consequently, in order to avoid complicity in what they believe to be the taking of a life, Ralph’s pharmacy does not stock emergency contraceptives, such as Plan B, that can “inhibit implantation” of a fertilized egg,

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-862_2c8f.pdf

It’s most certainly not the case here. The case here is that the pharmacist in question has a religious objection to the provision of contraceptives based upon their religious beliefs. The case here is that the Washington State Governor threatened to replace the Washington State Pharmacy Board if they didn’t mandate that pharmacists would not be permitted to refuse and refer customers to other pharmacies which did stock and supply the medication -

The District Court found that the regulations were adopted with “the predominant purpose” to “stamp out the right to refuse” to dispense emergency contraceptives for religious reasons. Id., at 1178. Among other things, the District Court noted the following. When the Board began to consider new regulations, the Governor of the State “sent a letter to the Board opposing referral for personal or conscientious reasons.” 854 F. Supp. 2d, at 937. The State Human Rights Commission followed with “a letter threatening Board members with personal liability if they passed a regulation permitting referral” for religious or moral reasons. Id., at 938; see App. to Pet. for Cert. 374a– 399a. And after the Board initially voted to adopt rules allowing referrals for reasons of conscience, the Governor not only sent another letter opposing the draft rules but “publicly explained that she could remove the Board members” if need be. 854 F. Supp. 2d, at 938. “[T]his was the first instance in which a Governor had ever threatened the Board . . . with removal.”

(same source as above)

There’s no mixing up a right to object with right to obstruct here at all. You might try and portray a right to object as a perceived right to obstruct, but you’d require evidence that there was any attempt to obstruct when there was none. Facilitated referral permits pharmacists to refer customers to other pharmacists, and there was no evidence that anyone had been deprived of timely access to their lawfully prescribed medication on the basis of the pharmacists religious objections to providing it -

The State appealed the District Court’s decision, and the Ninth Circuit reversed. 794 F. 3d 1064 (2015). Both in the Ninth Circuit and before this Court, the State defends the regulations as necessary to “ensur[e] that its citizens have safe and timely access to their lawful and lawfully prescribed medications.” Id., at 1084. But the State has conceded that this is not really a problem. It stipulated that “facilitated referrals do not pose a threat to timely access to lawfully prescribed medications,” and indeed “help assure timely access to lawfully prescribed medications . . . includ[ing] Plan B.”

Not all contraceptives are taking lives

That just cements that it was a political issue, not a legal one.

Especially when someone like Alito or Thomas leaked that decision in advance, exactly for the reason in the article - to pressure Roberts and perhaps Kavanaugh to toe the line. Mission accomplished. As I recall this was the speculation when the leak happened. Maybe Ginny Thomas leaked it.