The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Dr. Alain Braid is the Estelle Griswold of Texas
He performed an abortion in Texas after six weeks to set up a test case.
Shortly after S.B. 8 went into effect, I queried who would become the new Estelle Griswold of Texas? Who would deliberately violate the law to set up a test case? Dr. Alain Braid is the that person. Braid wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, titled "Why I violated Texas's extreme abortion ban." He recounted:
And that is why, on the morning of Sept. 6, I provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state's new limit. I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients, and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.
I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn't get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested. . . .
I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it's something I believe in strongly. Represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, my clinics are among the plaintiffs in an ongoing federal lawsuit to stop S.B. 8.
Braid, whose name is one letter off from the defendant in Eisenstadt v. Baird, told the New York Times:
In an interview on Saturday, Dr. Braid declined to say whether the woman whose abortion he performed on Sept. 6 had been informed that her procedure could be part of a test case against the new law. "I'm not going to answer any questions about the patient in any way," he said.
He said that he had consulted with lawyers from the Center for Reproductive Rights and hoped that, by publicly stating that he had performed an abortion, he might contribute to the campaign to invalidate the law.
"I hope the law gets overturned," he said, "and if this is what does it, that would be great."
Braid makes sense as a possible defendant for a test case. His small practice has much less to lose than a larger institution, like Whole Woman's Health. He is old, and likely near the end of his career. Plus, the fact that he practiced before Roe makes for a good narrative.
If I had to guess, no one will bring a suit--yet. The statute of limitation is (I believe) four years. By that point, all of the litigation concerning S.B. 8 will have concluded, and the Supreme Court may yet modify abortion jurisprudence.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Ignore him. Everyone else is deterred.
I would like to know if he killed a Democrat.
Good news. Germans potty trained cows, as only the Germans could.
https://abcnews.go.com/Weird/wireStory/bull-scientists-potty-train-cows-mooloo-79991165
He’s the Heller.
Heller, hellbound, what's the dif?
I am willing to sue him, if there's a lawyer out there willing to represent me. I need the money. My stipulation is that i won't oppose it if he raises various constitutional defenses; I do not want vigourous advocacy, just minimal advocacy.
Democrats love baby-killing twice as much as they did owning black folk!
"I provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state's new limit."
He can't bring himself to say that he detected a fetal heartbeat?
"I acted because I had a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients"
...obviously not *all* patients. Although I suppose patienthood status is not capable of precise definition. It should be a matter between a doctor and...himself.
The baby he aborted wasnt his patient!
At least it was a baby - the choicers are often sensitive about acknowledging that point.
Nope. Not a baby. Not a person.
Well, that settles it.
You realize you said "it was a baby," as if that settles it?
The last sentence puzzles me. Hasn't all litigation about SB 8 been foreclosed by the Supreme Court, unless and until someone creates an active controversy by suing under SB 8?
Yeah pretty much. Although this is where I disagree with Blackman, someone will sue him and relatively soon is my guess. Either a a pro-lifer that can't resist or a pro-choicer who wants the case to happen now
I'll be simply shocked if you're not correct. And a suit filed by a pro-choice person would not even be in bad faith.
Court: Why are you suing, if you believe a woman should have control over her own body and over her own reproductive system?
Plaintiff: Because I want the money!
I represented lots of clients who really like the defendants they were suing. Money (often) trumps everything else.
I guess the question is about whether the lawyer would be bringing it in bad faith though, since everyone agrees its an unconstitutional undue burden? Not frivolous with attorney fees or sanctions for bad faith though, just normal, dismissal/ loss because bad faith. I'm wording that imprecisely, but what I mean is consumer/ civil rights attorney fee shifting works because lawyers want to make money, clients can't afford lawyers without fee-shifting, so win-win, market efficiency, etc. But here, no lawyer can seriously anticipate getting money at the end of this rainbow so bringing any case is a waste of time.
Why can't a lawyer anticipate making money on these sorts of cases? I mean, there are lots of dumb judges, and I would not be surprised to see trial court judges find for the bounty hunter/her lawyer. (I do agree that, as cases are appealed higher and higher, it becomes less and less likely that a blatantly unconstitutional law will be found to be kosher. (Till it gets to SCOTUS, where I could totally see a 5-4 or 6-3 decision tossing out precedent, overturning Roe (and progeny), upholding this Texas law, and letting states do pretty much what they want in this area.)
And a suit filed by a pro-choice person would not even be in bad faith.
I think it would be more accurate to say that it's just possible to conceive of a plaintiff who would genuinely be motivated by the hope of money. Though as post hoc suggests, not that easy to actually find a real one.
But like you I'd be astonished if this isn't litigated fairly soon, with a plaintiff who has purely political interests, with a large fleet of pro bono lawyers, in a very friendly court of first instance. Perhaps shortly after the DoJ's case has crashed and burned at the 5th Circuit.
I predict a crushing victory for the puppet plaintiff, at least at first instance, wrapped up with one of those friendly settlements that bind the Texas Legislature to do jumping jacks every morning in penance. And possibly also to redistrict Texas according to the plaintiff's commands.
Sorry, got myself confused. It'll be a crushing victory for the defendant, and the defendant commanding the redistricting. It's easy to forget the distinction between plaintiff and defendant in a case like this.
Of course somebody's going to sue him. It's not like people who think it's imprudent can actually stop someone else from doing it.
if only Dems liked something useful like space ship design or solving traffic jams as much as they enjoy killing babies what a world we would live in.
Amos,
I dunno. The Democrats really liked the idea of provide all Americans with affordable health care. Now, we'd all think, "What sort of asshole would be opposed to that concept?" It is certainly the sort of "universal" good goal that you argue for...except that provide health care improves people's lives far far more than better spaceship design.
Except that my party (and, I assume, your party as well) has spent years and years and years opposing this. We have repeatedly lied about this, saying, "We like the idea, but we want to do it better, and we're got really good ideas about how to get that done." And, of course, we have put forth absolutely no legislation that would repeal and replace Obamacare. Even when we we in positions of power and could have done it.
Amos, I've done the best I can to search the VC archives. Looking for past comments from you where you support the Democrats' effort to pass the ACA. Or, at least, comments like, "I love that Democrats are doing this, rather than [fill in the black with whatever Democrat agenda item was bothering you most that day/week.] I think the Dems are doing it all wrong. But it's great that they are at least trying, and I congratulate them for that. Now, my fellow conservatives and Republicans; let's work with Democrats and make their bad plan into a really good one."
I can't find anything like that from you. (Please do link to them, if they exist.)
I guess the equivalent would be if Rev Kirkland (or other liberal) were to post, "If only Republicans did something useful, instead of causing the deaths of 500,000 Covid victims with an anti-science and pro-idiot stance. Or instead of launching us into a long war in Iraq on false and faulty premises, which caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents, and pissed away untold billions of taxpayer dollars." Are these sorts of partisan musings helpful? Again: I dunno.
"The Democrats really liked the idea of provide all Americans with affordable health care. Now, we’d all think, “What sort of asshole would be opposed to that concept?”"
It's kind of a stupid concept, if you actually bother thinking about it, instead of emoting and believing you thought.
There are some goods, like food, where you can define a minimum acceptable level, and anything above that is just luxury. So, you could say, "We favor affordable food for everybody.", and outside of a genuine famine, that's perfectly achievable. It might be as simple as dropping off a 50lb sack of Purina dog chow every month. Reasonably complete nutrition is remarkably cheap in the modern world, it's taste and presentation where all the money is spent these days, and it's easy to draw a line between them.
Health care isn't that sort of good. Health care is the sort of good where, no matter how much resources you throw at it, there's always more you could spend to gain real improvements in health, buy somebody an extra year, or month, or day, or minute, of life.
At some point that will change, when we've actually got a handle on biology, and the basic package will make people effectively immortal barring accident or murder. Maybe 50 or 100 years from now. Not today.
And that's not even taking into account the really stupid and controversial things that get called "healthcare" because they look sort of like it if you squint. Mutilating surgery and/or hormone treatments to pretend you've changed someone's sex. Baby murder. Weird cosmetic surgery.
The other fundamental problem here is confusing anything, anything at all, that requires somebody else to provide it, with a right. Any time you give somebody a "right" to anything that requires somebody else's labor to provide, you've decided you're going to take away somebody else's genuine right to do as they please instead of providing it.
And THAT is our real beef with you. You're writing checks that somebody else has to pay, and thinking you're being generous, and that the other person is a monster for objecting.
That's what's really going on here.
Although I generally agree that "affordable health care" is too nebulous to be anything more than a slogan, I'm going to beg to differ on the suggestion that health care isn't like food, because it lacks a taste and presentation angle.
In fact there are lots of features of health care provision that aren't primarily about health care. Like how promptly the doc will see you, and how quickly any operations get done. There may be times when this sort of timing question does affect the health care, but most of the time it's doesn't. It's more about (your) convenience and/or about enduring minor discomfort for a brief period, before you're treated.
Then there's the question of the environment of the doctor's office / hospital. Are you sitting waiting in a crowded room full of vagrants and drug addicts coughing all over you ? Or does everyone have a Whole Foods bag, and if they do cough, they're coughing into a clean handkerchief ?
And when there is nothing wrong with you, but you're just lonely, do you get to waste half an hour of the receptionist's time chatting, and then twenty minutes of the doc's time - in return for a crisp check ?
Then when you're in hospital, do you go on a ward, or do you get a quiet private room with flowers, and smart TV ?
And so on, even including the ease of parking.
If you have ever been in England and tried the NHS, the actual medical care - if and when they decide they want to treat you - is, if patchy, not too bad. Generally the more trouble you're in health wise, the better the standard of medical care. Until they pop a "Do Not Resuscitate" on your chart. Or you get one of those hospital bred bugs.
But the "taste and presentation" generally sucks - and it's an effective part of the rationing system that many patients don't want to go to the doctor's office unless they feel really bad, or are missing some limbs, because the doctor's office resembles Bedlam.
IMHO the big difference between food and health as goods/services is that an adequate supply of food is not merely cheap, but also equal. There is no that much difference between how much food different people need.
Whereas with health, the majority of people need zero to hardly any health care till they get on in years, or they're pregnant. Whereas some unfortunates need lots and lots, through no fault of their own. (Of course later on, the "your own fault" aspect of unfortunate-ness tends to grow.)
Thus when it comes to the question of welfare, the case for health welfare is stronger than for food (or schools) because the need is so much more variable between people.
That's kind of my point: For nutrition, there's a fairly well known floor, (Barring individuals with unusual dietary requirements due to medical conditions.) and it is very cheaply met by any modern society. Everything beyond that floor is just luxury, and I would hope, (In vain, but still hope.) that we could agree that nobody has a right to luxury at somebody else's expense.
We could drop off a 50lb sack of Purina Human Chow at your front door every month, and if you want something better, tell you to get a job, you lazy bum, because your actual needs have been met.
Similarly, keeping the weather off people is fairly cheap, while nice furniture and lots of space is again, just luxury.
So, while in principle I reject the argument for compelled charity, at least the amount that might be demanded is predictable and finite.
Medicine is different. Genuine medical needs, what is necessary to keep you alive, are usually about zero, but are subject to rising towards infinity in many cases.
So, while in the case of food, you're writing a check, and demanding somebody else pay it, in the case of medical care, you're writing a blank check, and demanding someone else pay it.
This is the one point that many pro-"free-health care" arguments ignore - or refuse to admit.
I've been called a liar many times for bringing up the Iowa patient that cost $1,000,000/month - that's one million dollars per month, every month - in treatments.
No society can bear the burden of many people like that. The US is a large, rich nation - one person like this can be handled... but 1000 of them? A million? It simply is not possible.
I agree with uou that the argumwnt that givernment must provide perfect health care as a right — often made — is a rediculous argument.
But theories of right are not the only theories of social action. It’s not rights or nothing. Nor is perfection the only possible outcome or the only thing worth doing. It’s not perfection or nothing.
So an alternative to saying “government must provide perfect healthcare because people have a right to it” would be to say “governmwnt should do something to improve health are because it would be good to.”
Both thinking solely in terms of rights or nothing, and think solely in terms of perfection or nothing, impoverishes both parties.
Well said, Y.
But if it's not rights, the government isn't obligated to do it, and the opposing party isn't obligated to share your priorities as to either ends or means.
In fact, the opposing party is perfectly entitled to think that many desirable ends are not proper functions of government, and that if you want more money spent promoting this or that, you can damned well spend your own money on it, perhaps by donating to a charity, and stop demanding that people ante up under threat of going to prison.
Because the government isn't a charity with guns, that's not its function.
I think the biggest thing the federal government could do to improve health care most of the time would be to get the hell out of the way, and STFU. We're still dealing with the health fallout from their idiot "food pyramid" urging people to get most of their calories from processed carbohydrates.
"But if it’s not rights, the government isn’t obligated to do it"
That's true as a legal matter, but very much not as a moral one. My moral obligation to treat you compassionately (and consequently the obligation I impose on government by casting my vote in a democratic system) doesn't imply you are morally entitled to that compassion.
Nobody really thinks that affordable health care isn't a wonderful thing or that having it available for everybody isn't a great goal. But large numbers of people realize that just taking a bunch of money from almost everybody so that a small number of people can spend huge amounts of it on health care doesn't really achieve that goal.
"Except that my party (and, I assume, your party as well) has spent years and years and years opposing this."
Not only that, but they haven't done anything to rectify the problems with the current system, like fixing the tax disparity between employer and non-provided health insurance (which would now require getting rid of the employer mandate.
Now, that is a reasonable complaint, and one conservatives often make about the Republican party. The party makes noises about caring about a lot of things that they won't lift a finger to do anything about when they end up in a position to have done something.
When Trump took office, with a Republican Congress, why didn't they have an ACA repeal bill on his desk the next day? Because they'd been lying all long about wanting to repeal it. The institutional GOP lies about a lot of things.
That's why we got Trump: Republican voters were so sick of the establishment candidates running on things they were never actually going to try to deliver, that we took a chance on somebody who looked like he might try. And he did, that's why the GOP establishment never had his back.
Completely off topic and just a message to Brett.
I strongly recommend that you read the feature in the British Medical Journal, "why doesn’t natural immunity count in the US?"
BMJ 2021;374:n2101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2101
Published: 13 September 2021
So, the bottom line seems to be that it's political, and just masquerading as science based.
The is correct, with many references cited.
Nope. Not a baby. Not a person.
"Who do you have to kill to get a test case around here?"
You should apply for work at the Babylon Bee.
I 100% disagree with your position on abortion, but this made me laugh. Well played, Cal.
It was less of a joke than a verbal barb.
Not really. You just can't see it.
Does Prof. Blackman not understand the concept of test cases?
Given the number of people in a position to bring that lawsuit, (Millions, even if you limit yourself to Texans.) under SB8, the idea that nobody is going to bring it is ludicrous.
Given that almost no one is performing abortions beyond six weeks and there is a statute of limitations of four year, I would not be surprised if no one in favor the law brings suit for the time being.
Again, since people have a range of motivations, and there are literally millions of people able to bring such a lawsuit, you should expect fairly early lawsuits.
"Given that almost no one is performing abortions beyond six weeks"
The history of the abortion industry suggests that such claims should be subject to extreme skepticism.
Maybe nobody in favor of the law does so, for the reasons you say — though given that any one of millions of people in the state of Texas (and perhaps non-Texas plaintiffs too) can bring such a claim, I wouldn't be too sure of that. But people who oppose the law have every incentive to bring a suit now. As a test case.
This is ugly. There's no other word for it.
If your "freedom" only comes though the taking of innocent human life, you are not free. A life built on someone else's death is half-dead already.
Sounds remarkably like slavery, doesn't it? Build your comfortable life off the backs of your victims, all the while denying their humanity.
Abortion is always a bit of a tragedy....but you do have to put yourself in the woman's place.....and there is no way for you mid-pregnancy to assume custody of the fetus and carry it to term. You have to compel the woman to accept your moral rendering of the situation....and simultaneously, potentially, absorb all of the health risks, the economic costs, social costs, and stress of either going through an uncertain adoption process or raising a child on her own. I assume the horror of abortion is only matched by your horror of having to pay more taxes to make doing the "right thing" easier. Moving abortions back to the back allies and having more women die doesn't sound especially pro-life. Let's make it easier to not choose abortion....
I like the sentiment here and also wish that those against abortion put more effort into understanding women's need to have reproductive freedom. If these people worked as hard at addressing the need for abortion as they do trying to stop abortions they might actually make more progress on their stated goal.
But that’s the rub, isn’t it - that their stated goal doesn’t align with their actual goal. We’re that the case, they would support a suite of policies aimed at reducing poverty and making the prospect of raising a child less precarious (universal healthcare, mandatory parental leave, free pre-k just for a start). But for most, it’s government protection for the pre-born, barbaric capitalism for the post-born. To be sure, I know anecdotally at least a few people, mostly in the Catholic tradition, who are both anti-abortion and anti-capitalism, and believe society and government should support human life across the board. But the vast majority of the “pro-life” movement is about being punitive toward women they see as being “promiscuous”, and nothing more than that.
Nice job of ducking the issue to fire of an ideological screed.
Well we certainly wouldn't want to inject ideology into a discussion of abortion, would we? And pointing out that cries of "sAVe tHe bABiEs" are actually crocodile tears most of the time is hardly ducking the issue.
Nope. Not a baby. Not a person.
It is a baby. Millions of people refer to it as such daily; it's normal usage.
It is not a "person" merely because a couple of judges decided this human should have no rights.
Casual usage of a word and the legal meaning of the word are two very different things. It is one of the more dishonest and intentionally duplicitous arguments that anti-abortionists use on a regular basis.
There is no legal meaning of the word "baby" at issue here. "Person" - yes. Baby, no. Pro-abortionists just argue this point dishonestly because they want to try and twist language to cover up the inherent moral repulsiveness of killing babies.
Here are my predictions.
1. No one who is seriously interested in actually preventing abortion will bring the suit.
2. Instead, a pro-choice organization will fund a lawyer for someone to bring the suit. This way, as expected, both sides (plaintiff and defendant) will be controlled by the pro-choice organizations.
3. In addition, this way they can control the appeals process, and keep appealing, all the way to the SCOTUS. Even if they get a "good" decision that overturns the law, the Pro-choice "plaintiff" will appeal, so they can get a higher court ruling.
I suspect that if there is an attempt to rig a lawsuit so that no serious arguments in favor of the law will be made by the nominal plaintiffs, the groups who favored the law will intervene at that point, either directly or as amici, and make sure their arguments get made.
And that is so obviously going to happen, that it would be folly for the pro-life organizations to wait. So I don't expect them to wait.
Spare us. It's clear that you have all sorts of hot opposition money and legal support behind you, and you just scored free nationwide PR for your clinics (plural!) out of that op-ed.
Excuse me if I don't exactly sob in my beer for you.
Abortions are his source of Income.
The new law basically killed his income stream -
Killing his income stream is "uncostitutional!"
Same reason PP fights to hard to protect abortion.
"Killing his income stream is “uncostitutional!”
Most of the right wing commenters on this site unironically think this is the law, at least when landlords are making the claim. Maybe Planned Parenthood should add a Takings Clause argument for the loss of value to their clinics, in an attempt to reach across the aisle.
And if Texas had commanded him to do abortions for free, you'd have an argument.
" Braid, whose name is one letter off from the defendant in Eisenstadt v. Baird, "
The Volokh Conspiracy could avoid this type of mistake by engaging an editor, but chooses to continue to err.
I don't have that beef, not in a major way. I have a beef in treating health care like it's a static gift to hand out, when real lifesaving comes about from technoligical progress in medicine.
You can't give it out for free until somebody invents it. And, unfortunately, these plans to hand out everything and the kitchen sink for free, aren't actually for free. They are inevitably associated with price controls that reduce calculations for chance of financial success from research by investors.
A company looking at developing a fantastically useful thing, but with substantial risk of failure, looks at probable profit levels as offset against the risk. If you have a 50% chance of success, but can more than double your investment, the math works out.
If your millieu has politicians waiting to scream how unsonscionable your profits might be (conveniently after the fact of invention) and crush it by law or taxation, you might say to hell with it.
And so those who care for lives cost them.
In short, anything that slows medical tech development costs net lives as the decades drag on, like compounded interest going the wrong way.
Who the hell cares if you give out free medical care in 2020 if the tech level is 15 years behind where it would have been but for the crushing of the profit motive?
Thanks, kind-hearted mass murderers.
Why do people in most European countries have longer life spans fhan in the U.S., yet spend a lot less money per capita?
The evidence-based answer is that the biggest improvements come not from expensive advanced technology at the margins of life, but basic preventative measures and the deployment of simpler technologies in a more widespread fashion.
And the simpler, cheaper things people can do to reduce their chances of getting to states where advanced technologies will help them benefit considerably from government support
The dirty little secret of medicine is that most health improvements have come through sanitation, nutrition, and good habits. All the stuff that has a big enough impact to dictate national life spans is that sort of thing, basically cultural. (Well, and how you define infant mortality has a big impact, too.) The stuff that keeps you from getting sick in the first place. We're largely bad at that stuff. It's an interesting question why.
But once you're actually sick? We're pretty good on that end of things.
Good point -
behavior,
Nutrition,
exercise,
but most important is genetics - like real science.
Another point is that life expectancy after discovery of most every disease is longer in the US that most every country in europe for most every disease.
All very true. That said, at least part of the lower European per-capita expenditures come from US consumers shouldering a proportionately larger share of drug R&D/profit due to comparatively stricter European cost controls.
I think Krayt's point is relevant to health cost differentials between the US and Europe. Although, of course, European governments and companies do try to invent drugs and health care techniques, in practice new medical technology and drugs are driven by the US market, which is not only the largest market but the only market in which new medical stuff developers can recover their investment, plus a profit.
Price controls everywhere else mean that you have to earn your keep-alive return in the US, so that extra sales in Europe etc are mostly gravy. You can afford to bear European price controls and government procurement because you've already made your basic return in the US.
Thus the US medical market is really subsidising new medical techniques for the rest of the world - because it allows the pharma/med companies to make a profit. If the US went down the European model of price control and government procurement of new meds, that would save US health care consumers quite a bit of money and would make a start on equalising health costs between the US and Europe.
The downside though is that it would make inventing new medical stuff waaaaaay less profitable, and consequently greatly reduce the investment in new drugs and techniques, and reduce the flow of smart people going into that sector.
How bad a thing that would be for actual health outcomes in the long term depends on your view of how important new medical technology and drugs are, compared to nutrition, fitness, keeping in shape etc.
Ridiculously important. I follow this stuff, and we're finally starting to get some traction on beating the aging process. Cancer, too. We're figuring out enough about how viruses attack, that pretty soon (20-40 years) viruses should go away as a health issue.
Optimizing lifestyle might get life expectancy into the 80's, maybe, and you're still going to be sickly your last few years, that's WHY they're your last few years. But the stuff that's coming if we don't spike medical progress could push life expectancies into the several hundred year range. Most people would expect to die of accidents, not age or disease.
I do not follow this stuff at all, but my guess would be pointing in the same direction as your more informed view.
The golden years for a policy of "never mind new drugs and technology, quit smoking, go walk the dog, cut down to a bottle of wine a day and lay off the fries" were probably 1970-2020. From now on it may be a little harder than that.
I'm not sure how a test case helps. The law is already clearly unconstitutional under current precedent, having a case directly on point doesn't help that much.
And you have the same problems as you do with a pre-enforcement challenge, that in injunction or dec is only binding on the parties.
Well, currently Texas abortion clinics are not performing abortions after 6 werk. A lower court ruling that it’s unconstitutional would enable them to resume operations and continue at least until the case gets decided by the Supreme Court, which could take years.
There’s a big practical difference between having to stop while things are pending and not having to stop while things are pending, given how long things often stay pending in our court system. It’s a difference people on both sides can easily understand.
Why would a lower court ruling that this particular law is unconstitutional have any different effect than Supreme Court precedent that says that all laws like this are unconstitutional?
If SCOTUS reverses Roe/Casey, the law allows people to sue for abortions performed prior to that reversal. Thus, merely having the precedent isn't enough to convince abortion providers to proceed. In contrast, assuming SCOTUS does reverse Roe/Casey, invalidating the entirety of this law would also invalidate the ability to sue for abortions perform before the reversal, and likely convince abortion providers to proceed.
But wouldn't overturning Roe and Casey also overturn any state court precedent relying on them to invalidate the law?
And the other ways that a test case could invalidate the law (injunctions and declaratory judgements) have the same problems in a test case that they do in the pre-enforcement context.
I would think the lower court would enjoin any enforcement of the law for conduct prior to the Roe/Casey reversal. Now perhaps SCOTUS could reverse that part of the lower court ruling as well, but I doubt it.
What problems are you referring to?
"What problems are you referring to?"
The ability of the court to enjoin non-parties, and the ability to apply declaratory judgements to non-parties.
Of course a ruling against a specific plaintiff would not immediately apply to other would-be plaintiffs. But, it would be a mere formality for the next plaintiff to get the same treatment.
It would take an appellate court decision for that.
"But, it would be a mere formality for the next plaintiff to get the same treatment."
Presumably it's already a mere formality. The law is clearly unconstitutional under Roe and Casey.
The issue of “health care” and “abortion” are clearly conceptually separable. There are European countries that simultaneously have stricter abortion laws and wider and more generous “socialized medicine” health care nets than the U.S.
In this thread alone, Cal Cetin, Tom for equal rights, AmosArch, DaveM and tkamenick all argued an abortion kills a baby. But if that is true, then a woman who has an abortion is a first-degree murderer and should be punished as such. So too is a stem-cell researcher or IVF clinician who kills an embryo. And yet, the only person who has ever even partially addressed this issue is Cal, who said political reality made it too uncomfortable for him to discuss. It's about time for those who make this argument to acknowledge the logical consequences of it and not hide behind their discomfort.
I'm not sure "if that is true, then a woman who has an abortion is a first-degree murderer and should be punished as such" quite brings us to the end of the logical trail.
Different degrees of moral turpitude are frequently assigned to different forms of homicide. Helping grandpa euthanase himself, or even doing it for him, is often regarded as less morally culpable than slicing up your neighbor for doing your wife, which in turn is often regarded as less morally culpable than kidnapping a schoolgirl and torturing her to death.
Moving on from morality to law, there's all sorts of additional practical issues to consider. If 65% of the population sincerely believe that, say, killing a dog is as bad as killing a human, and you want to protect dogs from being killed, maybe it's wise to settle for a maximum five year jail term for killing a dog, at least pro tem. That way, maybe you've got a shot at tempting in some of the 35% of jurors who are less dog obsessed, and so getting some convictions, and so maybe saving some dogs from being killed.
As far as abortion is concerned, as a practical matter, you might not even need to criminalise abortion at all, just legally "personalise" the fetus and so accept that shooting an abortionist in flagrante abortiono qualifies as self defense. Politically, abortionists are never as popular as pregnant women.
So I think you need to distinguish the moral from the political / legal, and then explain why pro-lifers pragmatic legislative proposals should be held to a philosophically purist standard that is never applied to any other kind of law. The law belongs to the world of men. Moral purity is more an angel thing.
"shooting an abortionist in flagrante abortiono"
To be clear, I'm against this for highly practical reasons - namely, that the prolife movement today is legal and is winning victories - if it does this the movement will be outlawed and more babies will be aborted.
The very fact that the choicers *want* prolifers to be assassins, is an argument against them being such.
I was jesting. The Texas law is a mild version of my jocular suggestion though - it moves the target from the woman's back to the abortionist's, and substitutes a water pistol for a real gun.
Morally, shouldn't she be treated the same as a woman who hires a doctor to kill her newborn?
Since the fetus is assumed to be a person, doesn't the Equal Protection Clause require a very good justification for the separate treatment. Would a law that punishes people who hire someone to kill tall people, but not short people, pass muster because of the politics that short people have no reason to live?
Can you give example of other laws we accept even though they are not morally defensible?
"Can you give example of other laws we accept even though they are not morally defensible?"
Laws allowing the killing of babies in the womb. That was easy.
How can you argue equal protection with a straight face?
Morally, shouldn’t she be treated the same as a woman who hires a doctor to kill her newborn?
Why so ? If two people get into a fight in a bar, and one (A) is large and tough and is beating the crap out of the other (B) - a small spindly youth, we might consider the moral culpability of each combatant in the light of whatever led to the quarrel, whether they have an irreconcilable conflict of interests, whether the conflict justifies the degree of beating involved, and so on.
But if some third party (C) - not involved in the original quarrel - piles in on the side of the guy who is already bigger and stronger and is winning, are we really required to view A and C in the same moral light ? C has no dog in the fight, no moral cause to intervene - or at least certainly not on the side of the stronger - except in the case of the abortionist, the lure of cash.
I don't see why we need to see them in the same moral light at all. In the case of abortion, if the woman has to continue the pregnancy she is at the very least being put to a very significant trouble. We cannot say the same for the abortionist. The pregnancy is no trouble to him at all. Just a profit opportunity.
Since the fetus is assumed to be a person, doesn’t the Equal Protection Clause require a very good justification for the separate treatment.
Sure, legally. But what does equal protection entail ? The woman is a person too, and she has her rights to self defense. On the fetus personhood theory, a pregnancy involves two people each of whom have rights. And they're physically connected. See Judith Jarvis Thompson's sick violinist illustration - accepting the fetus as a person doesn't necessarily end the argument as to how any conflict of interest between woman and baby, each considered as an equal person, should be resolved.
Can you give example of other laws we accept even though they are not morally defensible?
Sure, speeding laws. There's no moral justification for making people criminals for driving at more than x mph. That sort of law is a reasonable practical mechanism for achieving the desirable social end of reducing the number of car accidents in various places, using a fairly blunt legal tool and the wonders of statistics.
I suppose I could add age of consent laws.
Some 17 year olds in AOC=18 jurisdictions will have a more mature idea of the implications of sex than some 35 year olds. Since the object of AOC laws is to protect the innocent and immature from sexual predation, basing the law on age is a practical, approximate, stab at estimating maturity. But in a minority of cases Ms 17 will know exactly what's going on, and Ms 35 will be clueless.
The same can be said for a doctor for hire who kills newborns.
Only self defense makes sense as a way for the woman to get off the hook and I'm not persuaded by that argument.
As you said, a line has to be drawn based on safety. Ditto for age of consent laws based on maturity. What's the rationale for drawing the line at birth?
"What’s the rationale for drawing the line at birth?"
You tell me, your side does this most frequently and flagrantly.
I draw the line based on where it would be absurd to punish the women as a first-degree murderer. You cannot draw the line there if the fetus is a person.
You draw the line where you want killing human beings to be legal.
Nope. Not a baby. Not a person.
What species is it?
Now we're getting into evictionism. If there are two people involved, the mother and the fetus, who are both equal people, neither can be compelled to accept the other.
Ultimately, according to this theory, even if a fetus is a person with rights they do not have the right to exist inside the mother's body if she doesn't want it there.
It brings in all sorts of new legal issues, like requirements to render aid trespassing/squatting rights.
Ultimately, does one person have a legal obligation to keep another alive? Does a person have the right to take from another resources and services that they don't wish to provide?
Even if you manage to get fetal personhood to be a thing (which even North Dakota voters rejected), you would have to deal with the fact that people can voluntarily sever their legal connections to other people and would have no requirement to allow them to inhabit their property. And a woman's body is her property.
I may not be explaining it well, but look up "evictionism" or Walter Block and see fir yourself.
It's some crazy, but legally plausible, stuff.
Yes, I'm familiar with the evictionist argument.
I wouldn't call it any legally plausible in non-abortion context. Even the court in Roe v. Wade disagreed with you about the consequences of recognizing fetal personhood:
"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113
You're almost literally our-Heroding Herod.
The fetus' right to life would be established, but not the woman's obligation to provide the womb to sustain that life.
That's the crux of evictionism. The fetus' rights do not supercede the woman's rights. What law is there that compels one person to allow another to take things from them against their will? Or to inhabit their property without consent? Or use their resources without consent?
Why is it one person's problem if another one can't survive without the housing, food, and environment that they have? And if a woman has to allow a fetus to inhabit their body, why can't a homeless person inhabit your house in a winter storm or a heat wave? Or eat your food because they are starving.
There is, in general, no obligation for one person to render aid to another. The mother has no obligation to render aid to the fetus. If she doesn't want it, it's on its own. A truly bizarre theory, to my thinking, but not illogical.
I see you took the precaution of distancing yourself from this admittedly "crazy" and "bizarre" theory.
That's because I don't find it compelling or convincing. But it is a logical conclusion once fetal personhood is established at conception.
That’s the crux of evictionism. The fetus’ rights do not supercede the woman’s rights. What law is there that compels one person to allow another to take things from them against their will? Or to inhabit their property without consent? Or use their resources without consent?
All good points, Nelson. Let's focus on consent. One of the flaws in Judith Jarvis Thompson's Society of Music Lovers thought experiment is that the person who is connected up to the violinist has been kidnapped and hooked up against their will. So it's a reasonable analogy for pregnancy arising from rape. But it's not a reasonable analogy for the great majority of pregnancies.
In most cases, the woman consents to be pregnant. I don't necessarily mean that she welcomes it, merely that she iswhere she is by her voluntary choices. So if I borrow $1000 to bet on a 30-1 shot at the racetrack, and my pony loses, I'm not happy about having to pay off the $1,000. But I still owe it and nobody can say that I didn't voluntarily enter into it. Ditto the medical insurance company that finds itself paying off $250,000 a month in medical bills for some unfortunate schmuck. It's a bummer, but it's the deal I entered into.
A pregnant woman - unless she's been raped - voluntarily allows the little crittur inside her, whether with welcoming arms or as a result of crapshoot that didn't go her way. Of course she can influence the odds in the crapshoot with contraception, or time of the monthery, but if she's copulating she's gambling.
So in cases other than rape we need to consider "What law is there that compels one person to allow another to take things from them against their will? Or to inhabit their property without consent? Or use their resources without consent?" in the light of the facts that "against their will", "inhabit their property" and "use their resources" have illustration away from the field of abortion. Like - paying your gambling debts, renting out your condo, and operating an ice rink.
Sometimes your rights are curtailed by your prior choices. As you say,
"There is, in general, no obligation for one person to render aid to another. "
But "in general" is doing quite a bit of work there. "In particular" there can be just such obligations.
There are a plethora of reasons for unwanted pregnancy that your blanket assertion ignores. Unless you are saying that anyone who has sex, regardless of the precautions taken to avoid it, must carry that baby to term.
That's the "sex is only for procreation" argument, which is just irrational.
Unless you are saying that anyone who has sex, regardless of the precautions taken to avoid it, must carry that baby to term.
I'm saying that anyone who has sex (voluntarily) , takes the risk (voluntarily) that their having sex may have consequences they don't want. Which might include procreation. This is hardly a controversial point, after all. A guy has sex with a gal, something goes wrong with the condom, she gets pregnant, keeps the baby and he gets a court order to pay child support. He gets to "carry" the child not just to term, but to college.
This is not biblical retribution for the sin of seeking recreational sex. It's a burden imposed on him because children are a burden, and he's not allowed to drown the kid because it's a burden.
Your assumption is that the woman is obligated to carry the fetus to term. There is no such obligation in the law.
We could also consider a public spirited Nelson who, while sailing about on his yacht, spots a drowning man in the sea. Nelson sails up, rescues the guy, and heads for port, several hours away. But the rescued guy turns out to be a real pain. He eats like a pig, smells worse than a pig, scratches the woodwork and is a total conversational bore.
But - here's the thing - you can't chuck him back. Once you've rescued him you're stuck with him until you get to port.
Or maybe you're not. Can you dump him on the coast a five mile hike from a village. Probably fine. What about a small deserted island offshore. Somebody else might come along and rescue him. Maybe. How do you stand legally ? Probably not great.
So your argument is that by having sex the woman has already rendered aid, which increases her responsibilities to the fetus? That's an interesting point. And, although you'd have to flesh it out more, a logical one.
Why thank you, Sir.
The point is simply that, in non rape cases, the baby has not clambered aboard uninvited, and that might be relevant in assessing how to resolve any conflict of interest/rights between mother and child, or woman and fetus as you prefer. The usual argument that the fetus is a violator of the woman's body works less well in non rape cases. Usually the woman grants access to the sperm that does the deed.
The point is most obvious in the case of a woman who accepts implantation of an in vitro fertised crittur. The crittur could have been welcomed aboard any passing ship, but it was this ship that volunteered to take it aboard, and now there are no more ships in sight.
How strong is the case for "my ship my rules, I'm fed up with you, you're going overboard" ?
If you want another analogy consider going into hospital for an op. It's elective, so you don't have to have it, but you decide to go ahead. The docs get kitted up, put you under and start chopping. But after a while they get bored and go out to watch the big game, leaving you to bleed to death.
Why shouldn't they go out to watch the game and have a few drinks ? It's a free country. Except that having started to slice you up, they accepted an obligation to finish. They could have told you, no we're not going to opertate this evening, we're gonna watch the game instead over a few beers. No biggie, you can have it done another time, or with other docs. But once they start, they've got to finish.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, I am not claiming that all these issues easily and concusively demonstrate why a woman should be forced to carry a baby to term. I an merely making the point that the moral issues involved in abortion are waaaay more complicated and nuanced than the slogans of each side allow for.
Abortion is morally defensible. A majority of people have considered the moral arguments for and against banning abortion and believe that banning abortion is immoral and allowing it is moral. But I guess the only people whose moral thinking counts is the anti-abortionists, right? They have the only *real* moral sense in America.
No, we simply have science and logic.
You have a literal denial of the humanity of the fetus, and an "evictionist" argument rejected by Roe v. Wade itself.
Science and logic say 8 cell are not a human. Only faith or a potential-equals-actual equivalence does.
Then what species are they?
Also, I didn't say anything about my belief in the evictionist idea. I'm merely pointing out that if you believe that overturning Roe will be the end of the issue, you are very mistaken. There are implications to the repeal of Roe. There are implications to fetal personhood. Because they would be treated like every other person, under the law, not some sort of super-person with rights that exceeded everyone else's
Equal protection under the law means equal. Precedent for any other person would bind the fetus. Results of making an embryo a person would be all of what is often discussed vis-a-vis generally applicable law. And if the mother isn't going to stand up in court for the new "fetal person", who will?
But most importantly, people have the right of free association. The mother would have the right to disassociate herself from the fetus. And unless someone stepped up to provide a womb for it to live in, the result is inevitable. And that's just using property rights and free association.
Imagine every adjudication of rights and replace the two parties with a woman and the fetus. The possibilities are endless for justification of abortion in pretty much every facet of law.
Abortion will continue to happen, regardless of legality. If you think it won't, you are fooling yourself. If you shut the door to one avenue of legality, another will be tried. And another. And another. As long as a large majority of Americans reject the moral argument that those of you who fight abortion hold, you will never "win".
The belief that abortion should be "legal in all or most cases" has beaten the "illegal in all or most cases" 26 out of the last 26 years. It is the prevailing philosophical belief about abortion in America. The belief that abortion should be illegal in all cases has never broken 15%. Pew, Gallup, or any other reputable polling organization supports that data.
At the end of the day, Americans support choice in their bodies and their religion. Banning abortion prevents both.
Also, they can't even pass a personhood voter referendum in North Dakota. How many less-red states are there? How many do you think would would vote like North Dakota and deny personhood?
"Abortion will continue to happen, regardless of legality."
So does honor killing. So does slavery. Should those be legal?
"voter referendum...less-red states"
I recall your denying that you thought human rights could be determined by polls or elections.
I didn't say that. Because I believe that a vote and a poll measure the same thing: a person's (in this case) moral beliefs. And I refuse to accept that the moral beliefs of anti-abortionists count and the moral beliefs of everybody else doesn't.
Moral reasoning is the right of every person. If they don't come to the same conclusion as you, that doesn't invalidate their morality.
No, but they can't both be right.
If there's a doubt whether anyone is a human person with rights, why not err on the side of *not* killing the entity?
So even if the matter was as doubtful as you say, that doesn't help you.
"who said political reality made it too uncomfortable for him to discuss"
No, that's not quite accurate.
If you recall, I said women who abort without a doctor's aid should be punished as if they'd left their newborn in a trash can to die. There's your equality between born and unborn.
That only helps your case if you can find examples of such women getting the maximum punishment. I'm not talking about drowning one's children in a bathtub or a pond out of revenge against their husbands or whatever, but about desperate women who abandon their "unwanted" babies to die.
Also, the very fact that choicer concern-trolls, who claim to know prolife views more than prolifers themselves, *want* prolifers to embrace the first-degree murder argument, is an argument against that approach. The choicers wouldn't embrace that argument unless they were convinced it would serve the tactical purpose of keeping abortion legal.
Are you a conception-personhood advocate, Cal Cetin?
How much of your argument in this context is precipitated by superstition?
Unless you're ready to prosecute women who seek abortion and women who negligently cause an early miscarriage (with strenuous exercise while six weeks pregnant, for example, or by drinking too much alcohol before they know they are pregnant), don't expect most Americans to respect your unserious arguments. If you want to be an absolutist in this context . . . you need to be an absolutist.
"If you want to be an absolutist in this context . . . you need to be an absolutist."
This is what I meant about pro-choice concern trolls.
If anyone needed an argument against prosecuting pregnant women for "strenuous exercise," you just provided it. Generally, prolifers won't go wrong doing the opposite of what baby-killing extremists want them to do.
And I reject any superstitious debates about what point during pregnancy, or afterward, the personhood fairy sprinkles her legal-protection magic dust over a living human being, making them for the first time the possessors of human rights. Human beings have human rights.
I guess I'm a humanist. What are you?
I am the kind of person — liberal-libertarian mainstreamed, disdained of bitter clingers — who has been stomping clingers like you into submission in the American culture war for decades.
This seems to make you cranky. Is the problem that you have lost, that you must spend the rest of your life complying with the preferences of others, or is it that guys like me are the winners?
For a libertarian, you sure spend a lot of time talking about stomping other people into submission.
I recognize that this is what authoritarian, stale-thinking, reason-rejecting bigots deserve. Someone should be the adult in this context.
That's at least a step towards recognizing the logical consequences of your claim the fetus is a person. But, it appears you are still not comfortable discussing when a doctor assists (nor the stem-cell researcher of IVF clinic technician).
You are likely correct. But, the fact an argument is tactically convenient does not, one way or the other, tell us whether the argument is valid.
Good points. The reality is that punishing a women is untenable. When neophyte candidate Trump said that a women should be charged for having an abortion, the anti-abortion world went into fits. You never want to address the women. You want to focus on the provider of the service. Start arresting women and the anti-abortion movement is over post hast.
That's why you're concern-trolling the prolifers about the subject.
But be assured, as the technology of killing advances, and women don't need abortionists - I mean "providers" - then of course if they're the only culprit they'll of necessity have to be the ones punished.
You don't want the abor - I mean "providers" targeted because at the present moment they're the key to what you want.
"the provider of the service"
You can see how the choicers, those supposed realists, resort to euphemism like mad. Provider, service, procedure, reproductive health care, other persons, domestic institutions.
You don’t like euphemisms?
What about “traditional values” for racism and belligerent ignorance?
How about “conservative values” for superstitious gay-bashing and lethal recklessness?
“Family values” for misogyny and more childish superstition?
“Republican” for race-targeting voter suppressor?
“Heartland” for xenophobia and disdain for science?
The original theory of not charging the woman, and it goes back a long, long way, is that a women would have to be literally insane to kill her own baby, and so is the automatic beneficiary of a diminished capacity defense.
I find this a bit paternalistic, myself, but I AM persuaded that the goal is to save the baby, not punish the baby's killer, and if we save more babies' lives by leaving the woman be, and going after the abortionist, so be it. We can readdress that decision once we don't have millions of women operating under the delusion that there's nothing morally wrong with baby killing.
So, women who hire a doctor to kill their already-born children get an automatic diminished capacity defense?
Not traditionally, no. Tradition isn't under some obligation to be logically consistent.
The law should be.
It's not consistent now. Your side leaves a yawning gap between the rights of the born and unborn. Prolifers would at least *narrow* the gap.
It's an astonishing case of chutzpah. You think the unborn have no rights which the born are required to respect. The prolifers are pressing to recognize at least *some* rights.
You would make the law *totally* inconsistent. Some humans have human rights, some don't.
Where exactly is the dividing line between humans with human rights and humans without?
I crown you the champion of begging the question.
I crown you the champion of not answering the question:
"Where exactly is the dividing line between humans with human rights and humans without?"
Personhood.
Don't beg the question, when is personhood bestowed?
IMO, birth.
Amazing.
So, applying your own principles, a prematurely-born baby is more of a person than a...whatever-you-call-it...of similar gestational age who is still in the womb?
Remember, your principles have to be consistent!
That's correct.
So Josh, as you're the Mr Logic here, what's the logical principle on which your birth = personhood ruling relies ?
Birth is the point at which it is not absurd to charge a woman as a first-degree murderer who hired a doctor to carry out a killing. Even very late in a pregnancy, a woman may have an infection such that carrying the pregnancy to term would grievously threaten her health. Or, the fetus may have a fatal abnormality while carrying the pregnancy to term could be more difficult for the woman than terminating the pregnancy.
Even very late in a pregnancy, a woman may have an infection such that carrying the pregnancy to term would grievously threaten her health.
But this sort of thing is not a plausible argument for denying that the fetus is a person at this point in the pregnancy. It's just a convenient exit route from the much more complicated question as to how the woman's right to self defense stacks up against the fetus's right to life (if it were a "person".)
Whether a human is a "person" or not cannot logically depend on how convenient it might be for somebody else to get rid of it. Assuming we accept the idea that a person's rights are his own, not somebody else's.
My argument does not rely on convenience. It's instead a subjective judgment on absurdity.
Having said that, it is possible to argue very late in a pregnancy the fetus is a person but can be killed in self defense. But, at least through the early stages and perhaps well beyond, the self defense argument does not fly.
That's because "the born" are human beings and "the unborn" aren't. Fetal personhood keeps failing on ballot measures because people don't agree with it.
And before you whine about votes not being relevant to morality, first explain why only your moral beliefs matter. Or at least why you think other people's moral beliefs don't matter.
First explain what species the fetus is.
Cal Cetín
September.20.2021 at 12:02 am
Flag Comment Mute User
"First explain what species the fetus is."
Thats easy - the species is Human from the moment of conception
And why does that matter to personhood or life?
I think Cal's point is that if you deny that a fetus is a "human being" you have to be denying either the "human" or the "being" or both.
So it comes down to denying that a fetus is a "being" which seems a bit of a stretch, since it surely "be"s.
The traditional answer is to argue that "human being" connotes something more than "living human organism" and implies something like "person with rights." But it's not a very good answer, given the very sparse requirements of being.
It seems to me that the more elegant and convincing approach is to accept that fetus's are "human beings" but then simply to deny that all "human beings" have moral rights, keeping the discussion on solid scientific grounds. Don't concede the argument that "human being" is a value statemt rather than just a statement of fact.
The trouble with denying that certain living human exhibits, that you do not wish to afford full moral humanity to, are not "human beings" is that it's a rhetorical approach with unfortunate antecedents.
Bingo! And yet, that's the necessary logical consequence of their position. If people focused on logic and reason, we would have a quick consensus for abortion rights.
Very convenient.
Truth can be that way.
I acknowledge the logical consequences of accurately identifying the start of human life at conception. There is literally no other point in the process one can name as the start of personhood that would not be arbitrary. Sometimes you just have to go with the observed facts and accept them at face value.
It is a fair point that those of us who draw the personhood line somewhere other than conception have done so on a subjective basis, and you don't. But just to be clear, you are acknowledging that a woman who has an abortion, a stem-cell researcher who kills an embryo and IVF technician who kills an embryo all should be treated as first-degree murderers?
Attempting to reason with superstitious misogynists and half-educated racists is counterproductive, perhaps even immoral. Appeasing these right-wingers is at best a waste of time.
Let's see...which sex and which races are disproportionately killed in abortion? Apply your own "disparate impact" principles, or do you disavow those principles when it's convenient?
Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist unworthy of being honored. Or so at least said Planned Parenthood in New York, according to the New York Times of July 21, 2020.
So, was the founder of Planned Parenthood as bad as portrayed by the New York branch of the organization she founded?
Here ya go:
“Margaret Sanger’s concerns and advocacy for reproductive health have been clearly documented, but so too has her racist legacy. There is overwhelming evidence for Sanger’s deep belief in eugenic ideology, which runs completely counter to our values at PPGNY. Removing her name is an important step toward representing who we are as an organization and who we serve.”
/Karen Seltzer, board chair at Planned Parenthood of Greater New York
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-greater-new-york/about/news/planned-parenthood-of-greater-new-york-announces-intent-to-remove-margaret-sangers-name-from-nyc-health-center
And all of that is relevant ... why? No one bases their beliefs on what Margaret Sanger believed. Your average citizen probably doesn't have a clue who she is, what she believed, or both.
I'm trying to mess with the Artie-bot's programming. He has a series of things he regurgitates on all occasions, including "racist." So I'm showing him where the racism is, if we're to believe PP's NY affiliate.
You believe abortion is good, prolifers believe it is bad.
Do you believe women should be punished for abandoning their "unwanted" newborn babies? What penalty should they receive? You *do* care about the already-born, so apply your principles.
Abortion is a thing. It's not a good thing. It's not a bad thing. It's just a thing.
It's a procedure where some people do something.
Yes. And it is neither good nor bad.
"There is literally no other point in the process one can name as the start of personhood that would not be arbitrary"
The point at which independent survival is possible. That was easy.
And conception is an arbitrary standard, so I'd put that rock down. Glass House Dave.
Can newborns survive independently?
Independent of the mother's body, smartass. As in capable of individual existance.
But you know that's the meaning of the word I was using. Unless you actually thought I was arguing that life didn't begin until they were 18 with their own place and a steady job.
"capable of individual existence"
No, you're going to have to show me how newborns have an independent existence denied to the unborn before you ask me to believe a theory not accepted even in your side's own Roe decision.
"capable of individual existence"
No, you're going to have to show me how newborns have an independent existence denied to the unborn before you ask me to believe a theory not accepted even in your side's own Roe decision.
Remove the fetus from the mother. Does it sustain life? If not, it was never alive. If so, it is.
For example, when the doctor cuts the umbilical cord, does it survive or not? I'm not talking about minor details like with or without a NICU. I mean is there a 0% chance of the fetus maintaining life when separated from the womb? Then it isn't alive.
And I don't have a "side", unless you mean the anti-theocratic side. And every Constitution-loving person should be on that side.
Nelson comment - "Remove the fetus from the mother. Does it sustain life? If not, it was never alive."
did you flunk biology in the 6th or 7th grade?
True. I fell into the false equivalence that anti-abortionists make, where life=personhood. They are two different things, both legally and morally. So I will restse:
Remove the fetus from the mother. Does it sustain life? If not, it was never a person. If so, it is.
Impossible for a newborn to survive on its own, too.
How neatly you've removed personhood from the disabled and senile as well. Need a pacemaker? No more legal existence for you! Failed kidneys? Your heirs will be happy when you tell them.
Very eugenics. Much Nazi.
Oh, ML. When the doctor cuts the umbilical cord, does the newborn instantly cease all biological function? If not it is sustaining life. This is literally how almost every live birth goes.
But those who don't want to address this simple yes/no question use word games to take the word "independent" and pretend that it means an adult with their own house and a good job instead of the obvious meaning of "not dependent". It is the same thong you just did with "survive". It clearly means biologically, not some expanded meaning that involves nurturing and feeding itself and creating an environment that will bring out the full potential in the child. And you know that.
But rather than addressing the simple and obvious meaning, you try to pretend that something else was claimed. It is dishonest, disingenuous, and, unfortunately, typical of anti-abortion rhetoric. Deflection, especially obvious deflection like yours, just highlights the weakness of your position.
For an advanced course in dishonest and disingenuous rhetoric, read Toranth's post.
Independent of the mother’s body, smartass. As in capable of individual existance.
But you know that’s the meaning of the word I was using. Unless you actually thought I was arguing that life didn’t begin until they were 18 with their own place and a steady job.
You do know that a zygote can survive almost indefinitely outside the mother's body, right ?
An in vitro fertilised blastocyst only becomes dependent on the woman in whose womb it is developing (at current technology) once it's implanted there.
Of course it's still dependent on human help, but then very few of us could survive for very long without the help of other humans.
I'm not talking about anything more than biological capacity. And I'm pretty sure that facilities that handle fertilized eggs don't have all that expensive equipment for show. Removed from the body, a zygote will not survive.
As I have said before, the only logical point to use as the earliest possible point where the fetus is actually an individual is when it has the minimum requirements for biological survival: digestive, circulatory, and nervous systems, all major organs, and the brain activity to regulate and sustain those systems.
My personal belief is the same as Josh's that life begins at live birth, but if I work my way back from that point, the earliest I could see as a logical point that an individual exists is there.
My personal belief is the same as Josh’s that life begins at live birth
Yeah, but that's not remotely defensible scientifically. Most animals (and all plants) never get born, but are definitely alive, and you do not want to die in the ditch marked "but humans are different !"
Frankly - except for humans where politics intrudes - no biological scientists doubt that fertilisation is the start of a new organism's life cycle in any sexually reproducing species.
You may think that a live human organism is not "morally important" or not a "person" or whatever, and that's certainly capable of being defended on the ethical battlefield. But as a scientific matter "life begins at live birth" is about as solid as the stork bringing the baby.
Semantics are important in this debate. "Life" does not equal "personhood." The problem is people use the terms interchangeably. For example, the claim that science says "life begins at birth" is often heard as a claim that science tells us from conception, the zygote/embryo/fetus has the same rights as you and me. Moreover, I think opponents of abortion rights often intentionally, and disingenuously, use this phrasing to illicit such a reaction.
"“Life” does not equal “personhood.” The problem is people use the terms interchangeably."
People like Nelson?
No doubt people on all sides hope to use semantics in their favor.
For example, the claim that science says “life begins at birth” is often heard as a claim that science tells us from conception, the zygote/embryo/fetus has the same rights as you and me.
I agree (assuming "birth" is a typo for "conception".) The "ought" of a zygote/embryo/fetus/child/adult's life does not follow automatically from the "is" of those things all being different stages in the life cycle of the same human organism.
Nevertheless, armed with the now fairly dominany Judeao-Christian ethic of "equal moral value", the fact of that "is" puts a certain rhetorical pressure on the pro-choice side to offer a plausible rationale for distinguishing the moral status of the different stages in the life cycle, while retaining rigid equality for all of the born.
As I'm sure you are aware, one or two philosophers have argued against that equality for young children, by analogy with the abortion arguments about the stages of fetal development.
Life begins at conception, and that is a simple scientific fact. Pro-abortion people often intentionally and disingenuously, but even more commonly just out of plain delusional hysteria and stupidity, try to deny this basic fact.
A person, on the other hand, just means a human who has legal rights. A few judges decided that unborn humans are not persons, so they have no legal rights, or alternatively, that they have no legal rights, so they're not persons.
Again, just ask yourself would it be absurd to treat a woman who has an abortion (or a stem-cell researcher or IVF technician who kills embryos) as a first-degree murderer. If yes, then on that side of the line, the zygote/embryo/fetus is not a person (unless you can construct an argument such as self defense that justifies killing the zygote/embryo/fetus-person).
I admit my criterion is squishy and subjective (absurdity is in the eye of the beholder). But, I nonetheless think it works as a matter of logic.
I'm not criticising squishy and subjective.
Fair point, Cal. I often write "life" when referring to the legal concept of personhood. I should be more careful with my words.
"Nevertheless, armed with the now fairly dominany Judeao-Christian ethic of “equal moral value”"
This would be one of my main disputes with anti-abortion people. If my religious beliefs don't include Judeo-Christian beliefs (particularly the more strident versions of them), the First Amendment protects me from such an imposition.
I also ascribe to the idea that if you wish to force someone to accept a belief, consensus matters. As much as I dislike the tyranny of the majority, the tyranny of the minority is much, much worse.
As a matter of history the now dominant Western ethic of "equality" - held in common by the godly and the ungodly - derives from the Judeo-Christian traditions. Which is not to say that other traditions have not espoused the idea of equality, simply that in practice it's Judeo-Christian norms that have soaked and marinated Western culture, including secular culture. Nor is it to say that it didn't take a very long time for pre-Christian cultural ideas that people were very much not equal, to fully soak in. But by now, it's in, and you don't have to be religious to believe it.
None of this means you have to believe in the "equal moral value" thing. It's just that if you don't, you open a box that most folk prefer to keep closed. Tight.
Thank you. Separating the basic scientific definition of "life", the point at which an organism can survive independent of the womb, and the point at which life (as a legal definition of personhood) begins is something that the anti-abortionists don't usually distinguish. I appreciate the honesty.
Yes
Bravo, Dr. Braid. Let the theocrats figure out if they just want to own the libs or if they actually have any substance.