Anti-woman laws in America

I should have specified that I do lean in favor of fertility treatments being covered. I just think I need more information before I form a solid opinion.

Stuff what I do.

Well, we don't want to fund quack science, so certainly no voodoo mystical fertility treatments. Not sure what you mean there.

I'm not sure what you mean there. We were talking (briefly) about IVF on the last page.

Stuff what I do.

Well, what more information do you need?

If I knew that, I wouldn't need it, would I?

Like I said, both sides have good points and I'm not fully convinced yet by either. I just lean toward covering it mostly because I default to bleeding-heart hippie liberal on most issues.

Stuff what I do.

I still don't see what the good points for not covering it are.

They're less good reasons for not covering it at all, and more good reasons for not including it under the umbrella of "healthcare." That is, if we agree to cover "healthcare," IVF and similar might not strictly count...but perhaps we should be covering those anyway, for different reasons.

It's just something I've never given a tremendous amount of specific thought.

Stuff what I do.

I don't really see why it doesn't count as healthcare, but k.

Well, if you have the goal of, over time, decreasing Earth's population so that humanity can maintain a comfortable lifestyle without depleting the planet's resources, then having the government discourage fertility treatments makes perfect sense. I kinda doubt most objections to covering fertility treatments are based on that premise, though.

"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko

More to the point, overpopulation is more a problem in third world nations to begin with. Africa et all.

The governor of Georgia has signed into law a Fetal Pain bill which bans all abortion after 20 weeks, even in cases of rape or incest.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

Man, those asshats that live in Georgia are all terrible peo-oh shit-

edited 2nd May '12 1:24:42 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

I was going to say something full of snark.

Then I thought better of it.

So have a quote from Corbett about wanting to change women's minds about abortion.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

I think those laws are lame. If a woman wants to do something with her own body, let her. It's her body. It's nobody else's business why she's taking birth control (and the reason isn't always to prevent pregnancy; it could be to regulate her hormones or to reduce the number of periods).

I mean, a guy wouldn't like someone asking him why he's taking viagra, would he? I'm pretty sure he wouldn't like to be asked about his sperm count.

I don't understand why it wouldn't be "healthcare." Having a baby or getting sick because you couldn't get birth control would definitely affect your health.

I'm an elephant. Rurr.

The point where the fetus can feel pain would be a good point, but as there is dispute on when that is it's hard to say what should be done. The way I can see this being problematic is that if someone was prevented from getting abortion for those 20 weeks she couldn't get it legally even if the pregnancy was dangerous. Or if the fetus miscarriages, but that throws the pain argument out at lightspeed. If you're getting an abortion you should be getting it as soon as possible anyway. One of the rare cases where I'm not adamantly against restricting abortion.

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

How is that law not directly spitting in the face of the Supreme Court?

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

Well, what's the worst case scenario from the standpoint of Georgia? The law gets appealed. Each court strikes it down (or doesn't, more than likely), until it gets to the Supreme Court. Then what happens? BOOM! The law is reaffirmed. Why? Because of a 5-4 decision right down party lines.

Sorry, not "party." After all, the supreme court is an "apolitical institution."

edited 2nd May '12 4:28:34 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

It was a mistake to let presidents pick Supreme Court justices. They're barely better than congressmen these days. I don't know why they don't just put little R's and D's next to their names. It's what's happening, and everyone knows it.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

Well, what's the alternative? 18 year non-renewable positions for justices, such that there's a new justice elected every two years?

The fact that the president appoints supreme court justices is one of the checks and balances in the system. The fact that they're not elected means that they don't have to pander to voters. The fact that the president is the one who gets to pick them is a check on congress's power (since the supreme court gets to make rulings on the laws they pass).

The fact that the president can pick people who match his ideological leanings is a feature, not a bug.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

The real problem is that, instead of following the spirit/letter of the law, the Justices almost always use their personal views and morals to make their decisions.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

My main objection is that justices can "hold off" retiring until a president gets in that will replace them with a justice who mirrors their attitudes. Of the four conservatives (plus the "swing" vote), I think a few of em are old enough they probably woulda retired if Mc Cain had won in 2008.

I like the "replace a justice every two years" idea. That way, the court is constantly getting fresh blood, justices don't have the ability to "hold off" until they're replaced with someone ideologically identical, etc. You can have the president pick them if you want-every 8 years, a president will have a guranteed 4 picks though... hmmm...

Interpreting the law is their job as supreme court justices. You can disagree with their interpretation, but complaining about the fact that they're interpreting it sort of missing the point.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

"Torture isn't unconstitutional. After all, you're torturing them to obtain information, not to punish them, so it's not cruel and unusual punishment." Anthony Scalia

Is that "interpreting" the constitution? Or is it deliberately distorting the constitution to get the end goals one desires out of it?

edited 2nd May '12 5:45:23 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Yes. You may disagree with that interpretation, but evidently he doesn't. I'm inclined to disagree with it as well, but it's still an interpretation. Not necessarily a good one, but still.

edited 2nd May '12 6:29:55 PM by Boredman

cum