Octopus Overlords

Things are going great

Breaking News: Oklahoma lawmakers passed a bill banning nearly all abortions starting at fertilization, which would make it the nation’s strictest abortion law.

Just need the governor to sign it and then it's off to the races.

There's no exemption for in vitro fertilization in this new Oklahoma law (text of the bill is here). When asked about it, the bill's sponsor said:

“This would be in the case of proving that an abortion has occurred,” Rep. Stearman said. “And that would be tough to do in that situation.”

Which tells me that he has absolutely no idea how the IVF process works. IVF fertilizes embroys outside the womb, then implants them into the woman’s uterus after 5 or 6 days. Any additional fertilized embroys are then either frozen for later use or discarded. If his bill defines life as beginning at fertilization, then the bill just defined these embryos as "alive" and makes discarding the unused ones illegal. If that’s what you’re proposing, then at least have the balls to come out and say it, you regressive fuckstick.

It also only provides exemptions for rape, incest, or sexual assault IF they have been specifically reported to law enforcement. That's great, since statistics show that only about 25% of assaults actually get reported.

Conservatives: Dragging us all backwards in the name of Jesus.

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 3:05 pm There's no exemption for in vitro fertilization in this new Oklahoma law (text of the bill is here). When asked about it, the bill's sponsor said:

“This would be in the case of proving that an abortion has occurred,” Rep. Stearman said. “And that would be tough to do in that situation.”

Which tells me that he has absolutely no idea how the IVF process works. IVF fertilizes embroys outside the womb, then implants them into the woman’s uterus after 5 or 6 days. Any additional fertilized embroys are then either frozen for later use or discarded. If his bill defines life as beginning at fertilization, then the bill just defined these embryos as "alive" and makes discarding the unused ones illegal. If that’s what you’re proposing, then at least have the balls to come out and say it, you regressive fuckstick.


Conservatives: Dragging us all backwards in the name of Jesus.

Isn't he saying that in the case of fertilized embryos destroyed outside the womb it would he hard to prove that an "abortion" has occurred? Basically saying that while it's not specifically exempted, it's not really explicitly outlawed either. I guess it depends how they define "abortion" in the law. And I don't have the time read it right now.

I'm not defending him or the bill by any means, just thinking that he probably feels that they have a good enough out rather than being totally ignorant of the problem.

I read it differently, as it sounded to me like a "maybe or maybe not...we don't really know". I don't feel like "tough to do" would be much of a deterrent, but maybe challenges would get shut down if the first IVF suit that was brought forward failed.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I have exactly zero faith in what these people will or will not do in their efforts to shut down everything fertility-related.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 3:33 pm

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 3:05 pm There's no exemption for in vitro fertilization in this new Oklahoma law (text of the bill is here). When asked about it, the bill's sponsor said:

“This would be in the case of proving that an abortion has occurred,” Rep. Stearman said. “And that would be tough to do in that situation.”

Which tells me that he has absolutely no idea how the IVF process works. IVF fertilizes embroys outside the womb, then implants them into the woman’s uterus after 5 or 6 days. Any additional fertilized embroys are then either frozen for later use or discarded. If his bill defines life as beginning at fertilization, then the bill just defined these embryos as "alive" and makes discarding the unused ones illegal. If that’s what you’re proposing, then at least have the balls to come out and say it, you regressive fuckstick.


Conservatives: Dragging us all backwards in the name of Jesus.

Isn't he saying that in the case of fertilized embryos destroyed outside the womb it would he hard to prove that an "abortion" has occurred? Basically saying that while it's not specifically exempted, it's not really explicitly outlawed either. I guess it depends how they define "abortion" in the law. And I don't have the time read it right now.

I'm not defending him or the bill by any means, just thinking that he probably feels that they have a good enough out rather than being totally ignorant of the problem.

It's not a true out as any prosecutor can decide to prosecute it. "How many eggs did you fertilize? How many did you implant? What happened to the difference?"

stessier wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 3:56 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 3:33 pm

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 3:05 pm There's no exemption for in vitro fertilization in this new Oklahoma law (text of the bill is here). When asked about it, the bill's sponsor said:

“This would be in the case of proving that an abortion has occurred,” Rep. Stearman said. “And that would be tough to do in that situation.”

Which tells me that he has absolutely no idea how the IVF process works. IVF fertilizes embroys outside the womb, then implants them into the woman’s uterus after 5 or 6 days. Any additional fertilized embroys are then either frozen for later use or discarded. If his bill defines life as beginning at fertilization, then the bill just defined these embryos as "alive" and makes discarding the unused ones illegal. If that’s what you’re proposing, then at least have the balls to come out and say it, you regressive fuckstick.


Conservatives: Dragging us all backwards in the name of Jesus.

Isn't he saying that in the case of fertilized embryos destroyed outside the womb it would he hard to prove that an "abortion" has occurred? Basically saying that while it's not specifically exempted, it's not really explicitly outlawed either. I guess it depends how they define "abortion" in the law. And I don't have the time read it right now.

I'm not defending him or the bill by any means, just thinking that he probably feels that they have a good enough out rather than being totally ignorant of the problem.

It's not a true out as any prosecutor can decide to prosecute it. "How many eggs did you fertilize? How many did you implant? What happened to the difference?"

Again, depends on their definition of "abortion." Is destroying an embryo fertilized outside of the womb an "abortion?"

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 8:58 pm
Again, depends on their definition of "abortion." Is destroying an embryo fertilized outside of the womb an "abortion?"

If the law is codified as "life begins at fertilization", how is there any way that destroying that life is anything other than an abortion?

The way it's written, it wouldn't be deemed an abortion:

"Abortion" means the act of using, prescribing, administering, procuring, or selling of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the purpose to terminate the pregnancy of a woman [...]

However, it does define a zygote as an 'unborn child', which does suggest that it would considered murder.

Another part that gets under my skin:

3. "Medical emergency" means a condition in which an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself;

They go out of their way to include 'physical' as a qualifier of every other term, so as to intentionally bypass any discussion of psychological harm - say, from carrying a rapist's baby to term.

gbasden wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 3:11 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 8:58 pm
Again, depends on their definition of "abortion." Is destroying an embryo fertilized outside of the womb an "abortion?"

If the law is codified as "life begins at fertilization", how is there any way that destroying that life is anything other than an abortion?

Is that how they codified it? Again, I haven't read the law.

From your link:

“If signed into law, Oklahoma’s new bill will be the first state law passed that explicitly defines an ‘unborn child’ as present at conception, a key goal for proponents of ‘fetal personhood,’ according to Chrissy Stroop, a prominent ex-evangelical writer, speaker and advocate.

"Unborn" and "fetal personhood" are probably important to define as well. Is a fertilized embryo in a lab "unborn?" If you just leave it there it won't get born.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 8:26 am

They go out of their way to include 'physical' as a qualifier of every other term, so as to intentionally bypass any discussion of psychological harm - say, from carrying a rapist's baby to term.

I'd be curious to see if OK has a "stand your ground" law, and what the standard is for allowing someone to get away with killing a real, actualized human being. Specifically, I'd be curious to know if OK is one of those states where one simply has to "feel threatened."

(As an aside, I wonder if you could use the "I feel like my life in in danger" defense if a fetus is legally a person.)

2. "Fertilization" means the fusion of a human spermatozoon with a human ovum;

4. "Unborn child" means a human fetus or embryo in any stage of gestation from fertilization until birth;

I think the word that would be argued here is 'gestation', which could mean 'in development' or 'in the womb' depending on which definition they went with - and the text does not specify the definition.

geezer wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 9:45 am

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 8:26 am

They go out of their way to include 'physical' as a qualifier of every other term, so as to intentionally bypass any discussion of psychological harm - say, from carrying a rapist's baby to term.

I'd be curious to see if OK has a "stand your ground" law, and what the standard is for allowing someone to get away with killing a real, actualized human being. Specifically, I'd be curious to know if OK is one of those states where one simply has to "feel threatened."

(As an aside, I wonder if you could use the "I feel like my life in in danger" defense if a fetus is legally a person.)

They have a castle doctrine, and one could argue that a fetus is present forcefully and against the mother's will, but I don't think 'great bodily harm' would apply to psychological damage, and they'd run up against whether one's body counts as one's dwelling (you're getting into metaphysics and/or religion there.)

Absolutely awful:

Police suspect arson was behind a fire that damaged a clinic under construction in Casper that would become Wyoming’s sole site for procedural abortions.

A caller phoned 911 shortly before dawn Wednesday to report seeing someone with a gas can running away from the building near downtown Casper. Smoke billowed from the building’s windows by the time authorities arrived, Casper police said.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 9:55 am

geezer wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 9:45 am

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 8:26 am

They go out of their way to include 'physical' as a qualifier of every other term, so as to intentionally bypass any discussion of psychological harm - say, from carrying a rapist's baby to term.

I'd be curious to see if OK has a "stand your ground" law, and what the standard is for allowing someone to get away with killing a real, actualized human being. Specifically, I'd be curious to know if OK is one of those states where one simply has to "feel threatened."

(As an aside, I wonder if you could use the "I feel like my life in in danger" defense if a fetus is legally a person.)

They have a castle doctrine, and one could argue that a fetus is present forcefully and against the mother's will, but I don't think 'great bodily harm' would apply to psychological damage, and they'd run up against whether one's body counts as one's dwelling (you're getting into metaphysics and/or religion there.)

I don't know how another person could invade another person's domain more than actually occupying space inside their body.

Domain isn't in Oklahoma's castle doctrine's language. Dwelling is.

You are being too pedantic for the comment I was making.

*shrug*

Then I have no idea what your point was.

The spirit of the law. Not the letter of the law.


The idea that one’s body is even more personal and sacred and righteously self-defendable than one’s dwelling.



Or to start with where you were last on the topic:

they'd run up against whether one's body counts as one's dwelling (you're getting into metaphysics and/or religion there.)

I'm saying that it doesn't need to get metaphysical... It can be plainly seen that by defending one's dwelling, the true goal is to defend one's body... since the purpose of the dwelling is to do just that.


Could you let me know if that answers your question and/or makes sense?

Trying to converse here, and I value your opinion.

Nice to see we'll involve the USPS soon

The Louisiana House has approved two anti-abortion bills: One criminalizes selling abortion pills through the mail. The second would immediately close all abortion clinics, criminalize most pregnancy termination actions, and send physicians who perform the procedures to prison.

Oh, and imprisoning physicians. Totally normal now.

FFS, it's not like they're seismologists!

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 3:13 pm Nice to see we'll involve the USPS soon

Does the USPS enforce state bans? I have no idea how this would work.

I would assume that as soon as someone is alleging illicit materials are being sent through the mail, the postal inspection service is going to get involved.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 3:13 pm Nice to see we'll involve the USPS soon

The Louisiana House has approved two anti-abortion bills: One criminalizes selling abortion pills through the mail. The second would immediately close all abortion clinics, criminalize most pregnancy termination actions, and send physicians who perform the procedures to prison.

Oh, and imprisoning physicians. Totally normal now.

Something was pointed out to me the other day: no one ever makes a law that punishes the woman... because that would be a non-starter.

...But they don't want to admit that, it just goes unspoken - and obviously they need women to feel like victims of a larger conspiracy... not the criminal or the murderer.

*Gets out his map and crayons*

*Colors another state to the color that reminds him 'never'*

Turns out the Confederated States of Jesus will have most states in it than I thought. DeSantis is already moving on from this to stopping Medicaid support of trans adults, so he's blazing the path. Who knew Revolt in 2100 would read like prophecy?

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 6:39 pm I would assume that as soon as someone is alleging illicit materials are being sent through the mail, the postal inspection service is going to get involved.

Bit if it's not illegal at the federal level, why would the USPS enforce it? If a city bans, say, satanic reading materials, would the USPS enforce the ban? No.

https://www.curbed.com/2022/05/abortion ... s-roe.html

“I just have a million questions,” Wendy Parmet, a professor at Northeastern who specializes in reproductive-rights law, says of the legal battles to come. “I see a mess. More litigation and more confusion. In the draft, Justice Alito says it’s time to give everything to the states, but that implies that state legislatures will provide neat and tidy results in each state.” Instead, what Parmet foresees is a storm of litigation — between states, between states and the federal government, between individuals and states. “States can’t regulate federal mail,” Parmet reasons, “but they can regulate the use, the touch, the possession” of abortion medication within their boundaries. “But how do they actually enforce it?” she wondered. “Are they really going to be able to stop it?” They couldn’t in Texas.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 7:00 am

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 6:39 pm I would assume that as soon as someone is alleging illicit materials are being sent through the mail, the postal inspection service is going to get involved.

Bit if it's not illegal at the federal level, why would the USPS enforce it? If a city bans, say, satanic reading materials, would the USPS enforce the ban? No.

https://www.curbed.com/2022/05/abortion ... s-roe.html

“I just have a million questions,” Wendy Parmet, a professor at Northeastern who specializes in reproductive-rights law, says of the legal battles to come. “I see a mess. More litigation and more confusion. In the draft, Justice Alito says it’s time to give everything to the states, but that implies that state legislatures will provide neat and tidy results in each state.” Instead, what Parmet foresees is a storm of litigation — between states, between states and the federal government, between individuals and states. “States can’t regulate federal mail,” Parmet reasons, “but they can regulate the use, the touch, the possession” of abortion medication within their boundaries. “But how do they actually enforce it?” she wondered. “Are they really going to be able to stop it?” They couldn’t in Texas.

The USPS was partially politicized by Trump in 2020. DeJoy is still sitting in the big chair right now. Why wouldn't the rot continue to spread there? It's not unthinkable considering recent events. Every time that a new battleground appears, the GOP taints it. That's the pattern. Assuming the current status quo holds is probably bad prediction.

Well, even more reason to think they couldn't operationalize state-specific inspections.

So if you get pregnant in Oklahoma and drive to another state to get an abortion, can you be arrested when you return to Oklahoma?

Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 2:35 am So if you get pregnant in Oklahoma and drive to another state to get an abortion, can you be arrested when you return to Oklahoma?

No, it outlaws abortions in the state. It also allows private citizens to sue providers of abortions and I suppose they could try to sue out of state provides but I doubt it would go very far (but then IANAFL).

Women's bodies are not made illegal by having an abortion.

Yet.

Whew, I'm glad you're not a Florida. That place is nuts.

Things still happening...

Abortions are no longer available in South Dakota even though it's still legal.

The state's sole clinic, staffed by out-of-state doctors, decided to stop providing them. The last one was on Monday.

...

Abortion access in SD was already extremely limited

There's a 3-day waiting period and the clinic offered few appointment slots since the doctor(s) came from out-of-state.

Unless you live in/near Sioux Falls it was probably easier and quicker to go out of state.

The closest clinic offering abortion for people in the Sioux Falls area is now the one in Omaha, about 2 hours, 45 minutes away.

Other areas in SD are closer to clinics in Fargo, Minneapolis, Fort Collins/Denver area, or Billings.

I know everything is on fire right now (and we're all quite worried about drag queens reading to kids), but I am struggling to understand how this is isn't red alarm news everywhere:

as we await a likely Supreme Court decision overturning Roe, here is a sign of what will follow: A Heritage Foundation mediocrity touting a "thoughtful proposal" to commit women who have abortions to "mandatory psychiatric custody"

...

btw this isn't some random dude endorsing "mandatory psychiatric custody" for women, it's a Director at the Heritage Foundation -- the most important right-wing think-tank of the last 50 years.

Every Republican candidate should be asked about this.

Blessed be the fruit.

The driver of the car service this morning decided to firehose Fox News into my face as he drove me to the airport. One of the shocking number of things they were fear-mongering about was the potential decision to reverse Roe, and the flood of angry liberal violence that has been promised.

One thing they were bothered by in particular is all the violence directed towards Pro Life supporters and facilities. The host said, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, “Can you imagine if this was happening to planned parenthood or pro-abortion clinics/supporters?!”

Yes, yes I can imagine that. Because it’s been happening routinely for 40 years.

That's the playbook.

So demoralizing.

I'm setting up a recurring donation to the Brigid Alliance, which helps people travel out-of-state for abortion care.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:12 pm I know everything is on fire right now (and we're all quite worried about drag queens reading to kids), but I am struggling to understand how this is isn't red alarm news everywhere:

as we await a likely Supreme Court decision overturning Roe, here is a sign of what will follow: A Heritage Foundation mediocrity touting a "thoughtful proposal" to commit women who have abortions to "mandatory psychiatric custody"

...

btw this isn't some random dude endorsing "mandatory psychiatric custody" for women, it's a Director at the Heritage Foundation -- the most important right-wing think-tank of the last 50 years.

Every Republican candidate should be asked about this.

When you use the label, Christo-Fascist, I sometimes recoil as it seems a little over the top. Definitely not so here.

That article was like a Christo-Fascism 101 course. And it’s all so out in the open. References to “our imperfect, merely human legal system” and “our fallen world” and “God willing” . . . It’s amazing these guys don’t see the Taliban and the other Islamists wanting to institute Shariah law as kindred spirits. They’re so clearly just two sides of the same coin.