South Carolina Supreme Court upholds abortion ban

[essentialsaltes]

South Carolina's new all-male highest court reverses course on abortion, upholding strict 6-week ban​

The 4-1 ruling departs from the court’s own decision months earlier striking down a similar ban that the Republican-led Legislature passed in 2021.
[The lone female justice retired. And a new, substantially similar, law was passed that addressed one of the concerns of another justice, leading to this 4-1 decision reversing the previous 3-2 one, discussed here:]

South Carolina Supreme Court strikes down abortion ban​

 

[HARK!]

Writing for the new majority, Justice John Kittredge acknowledged that the 2023 law also infringes on “a woman’s right of privacy and bodily autonomy,” but said the state Legislature reasonably determined this time around that those interests don’t outweigh “the interest of the unborn child to live.”

South Carolina’s new all-male Supreme Court reverses course on abortion, upholds strict 6-week ban

South Carolina’s new all-male Supreme Court reversed course on abortion Wednesday, upholding a law banning most such procedures except in the earliest weeks of pregnancy.

www.washingtontimes.com

Yep, just because it's your body; doesn't give you the right to use it to kill babies.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Writing for the new majority, Justice John Kittredge acknowledged that the 2023 law also infringes on “a woman’s right of privacy and bodily autonomy,” but said the state Legislature reasonably determined this time around that those interests don’t outweigh “the interest of the unborn child to live.”

Sounds like they were just weighing countervailing interests (as most state legislatures do)

Weighing privacy and autonomy vs. other interests isn't anything particularly unique.

Where I think some people set a trap for themselves is by clinging to a particular issue with a myopic view, and not expanding their train of thought to see if that logic still makes sense in their head if they swapped it and applied the logic to a separate, but similar, issue.


For instance, if some on the right took some of their 2020 arguments against covid measures, and applied that to abortion, they wouldn't like the outcome.

Likewise, the inverse would be true for some on the left if they took some of their arguments in favor of abortion, and applied to it to covid.


Or perhaps a more "catchy" way to put it....

Everyone likes the sentiments of "my body my choice...if there's externalities, so be it" and "what I want to do, medically, is a private decision between me and my doctor" provided it's a choice they approve of and/or if the doctor is willing to indulge them in whatever it is they wanted to do.

 

[HARK!]

Everyone likes the sentiments of "my body my choice...if there's externalities, so be it" and "what I want to do, medically, is a private decision between me and my doctor" provided it's a choice they approve of and/or if the doctor is willing to indulge them in whatever it is they wanted to do.

Here's the thing: A mother's child is not her body.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Here's the thing: A mother's child is not her body.

That would be what I'd call an externality...

Much like it's an externality if a person chooses to go into a grocery store and breath on people while carrying a highly contagious virus, or chooses to try to go on (what they think is) a prophylactic z-pak regimen thereby contributing to the problem of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

None of these are things that are externality-free decisions.

"If someone else gets sick or dies, that's an externality I'm willing to tolerate because I don't want to have my economic situation ruined" (from the right)
and
"If a non-sentient fetus gets terminated, that's an externality I'm willing to tolerate because I don't want to have my economic situation ruined" (from the left)

...they don't really sound all that dissimilar to me

 

[HARK!]

That would be what I'd call an externality...

Much like it's an externality if a person chooses to go into a grocery store and breath on people while carrying a highly contagious virus, or chooses to try to go on (what they think is) a prophylactic z-pak regimen thereby contributing to the problem of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

None of these are things that are externality-free decisions.

"If someone else gets sick or dies, that's an externality I'm willing to tolerate because I don't want to have my economic situation ruined" (from the right)
and
"If a non-sentient fetus gets terminated, that's an externality I'm willing to tolerate because I don't want to have my economic situation ruined" (from the left)

...they don't really sound all that dissimilar to me

There were State mandates, for masks even in the most Conservative states; but I never heard of anyone scheduling an appointment for abortion by accident.

With these abortion appointments, the intent is to kill the child. If someone intentionally spreads a disease; this Republican says that there should be severe consequences.

 

[NxNW]

Here's the thing: A mother's child is not her body.

But it has no right to attach itself to hers.

 

[HARK!]

But it has no right to attach itself to hers.

He does if she invited him.

You can't invite someone into your home, to kill him for trespassing.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

There were State mandates, for masks even in the most Conservative states; but I never heard of anyone scheduling an appointment for abortion by accident.

With these abortion appointments, the intent is to kill the child. If someone intentionally spreads a disease; this Republican says that there should be severe consequences.

Intentionally ignoring/defying health orders with regards to a virus that that could be lethal for some people and basically as contagious as chickenpox would be, at best, negligence, and at worst, intentional if they were one of the types that bragged about defying the health orders.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

He does if she invited him.

"inviting him in" isn't the proper analogy. (as that would imply that someone was wanting to get pregnant, but then simply changed their mind on a whim)

Accidentally/negligently forgetting to lock the door would be more apropos.

 

[HARK!]

Intentionally ignoring/defying health orders with regards to a virus that that could be lethal for some people and basically as contagious as chickenpox would be, at best, negligence, and at worst, intentional if they were one of the types that bragged about defying the health orders.

Bragging about driving drunk does not equate to vehicular manslaughter.

A better example of what I was speaking of would be sending anthrax through the mail, or going to bed with someone, while knowingly carrying AIDS.

We're really starting to get off topic here.

 

[HARK!]

"inviting him in" isn't the proper analogy. (as that would imply that someone was wanting to get pregnant, but then simply changed their mind on a whim)

When you invite a man to sow seeds in your garden; you have invited seeds into your garden. It would be foolish to expect none to sprout.

Accidentally/negligently forgetting to lock the door would be more apropos.

If one locks the gate to her garden; then anyone who might come to sow his seed in the garden, is obligated to have permission to enter the garden

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Bragging about driving drunk does not equate to vehicular manslaughter.

A better example of what I was speaking of would be sending anthrax through the mail, or going to bed with someone, while knowingly carrying AIDS.

We're really starting to get off topic here.

It's not really all that "off-topic" to discuss how policymakers and people weigh countervailing interests.

It's pretty commonplace...just uncomfortable to talk about without sounding like a callous person.

For instance, if we lowered the speed limit to 30 mph, we would save tens of thousands of lives...but the countervailing interest is that if we did that, it would have drastic personal & economic impacts. That's a "lives vs convenience/economics" trade-off we've all been willing to make. Sounds harsh, but it's reality.

It's not the job of policy makers to cater to specific morals, theirs is a more results-based field.

As it currently stands, had first-trimester abortion not been available to women with low incomes, there'd be a vast slew of mouths that needed fed, and that the same people would complaining about why they "shouldn't have to pay for that".

Now, if staunch conservatives wanted to have an "ace in the hole" to play, they could advocate for no-cost contraception and for expanding social safety nets and making childcare and healthcare available to every American (regardless of how much money they have), and then they'd have the "you have no excuse for not carrying to term" talking point to fall back on.

If not, then the pro-life rhetoric rings a little hollow. One can't say "protecting this life is of the upmost importance, so important that it's worth pulling every level of government available in order to do so" while simultaneously saying "well, I don't wanna pay an extra $180 in taxes every year, it's their mistake, they should deal with it"

If it was that important to them, there should be no amount of money that would be too much in order for them to make sure the "could-be" mother has every chance to be able to provide for the child in order to deter the abortion approach.

 

[HARK!]

It's not really all that "off-topic" to discuss how policymakers and people weigh countervailing interests.

It's pretty commonplace...just uncomfortable to talk about without sounding like a callous person.

For instance, if we lowered the speed limit to 30 mph, we would save tens of thousands of lives...but the countervailing interest is that if we did that, it would have drastic personal & economic impacts. That's a "lives vs convenience/economics" trade-off we've all been willing to make. Sounds harsh, but it's reality.

It's not the job of policy makers to cater to specific morals, theirs is a more results-based field.

As it currently stands, had first-trimester abortion not been available to women with low incomes, there'd be a vast slew of mouths that needed fed, and that the same people would complaining about why they "shouldn't have to pay for that".

Now, if staunch conservatives wanted to have an "ace in the hole" to play, they could advocate for no-cost contraception and for expanding social safety nets and making childcare and healthcare available to every American (regardless of how much money they have), and then they'd have the "you have no excuse for not carrying to term" talking point to fall back on.

If not, then the pro-life rhetoric rings a little hollow. One can't say "protecting this life is of the upmost importance, so important that it's worth pulling every level of government available in order to do so" while simultaneously saying "well, I don't wanna pay an extra $180 in taxes every year, it's their mistake, they should deal with it"

If it was that important to them, there should be no amount of money that would be too much in order for them to make sure the "could-be" mother has every chance to be able to provide for the child in order to deter the abortion approach.

I started to read your opinion, until more and more it started sounding like a proposal that it would serve economic interests to kill off portions of the population. I'm so glad that we live in a Republic.

 

[NxNW]

He does if she invited him.

You can't invite someone who doesn't yet exist. Consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to pregnancy, anymore than riding a car is consenting to be driven somewhere against your will.

You can't invite someone into your home, to kill him for trespassing.

If you accidentally leave the door unlocked and someone comes in, you can eject them at gunpoint, even if it means they freeze to death.

 

[HARK!]

You can't invite someone who doesn't yet exist. Consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to pregnancy, anymore than riding a car is consenting to be driven somewhere against your will.

If you accidentally leave the door unlocked and someone comes in, you can eject them at gunpoint, even if it means they freeze to death.

More children are killed by abortion than are by guns; and the right to have sex isn't clearly specified in the Constitution like the right to bear arms. Perhaps we should require licenses to have sex like, the Liberals want for guns. We could go with a traditional marriage license. Those who violate the laws for unlicensed sex, or who kill a baby as a result of their irresponsibility would face felony charges.

I like it!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I started to read your opinion, until more and more it started sounding like a proposal that it would serve economic interests to kill off portions of the population. I'm so glad that we live in a Republic.

Aren't we already doing that with a wide variety of policies?

I provided the speed limit as an example. (we'd save 15k lives per year if nobody was allowed to drive over 30mph)

We could ban fast food and cigarettes and a save a million lives...anyone eager to sign on for that restriction?

There's things we all do that come with inherent risks. Any of us who are gun owners knows that the fact that guns are available means it's inevitable that some bad people will end up getting their hands on one and hurting someone with it, I'm not prepared to give up my ability to have one, are you?