6 ms·

> Note that most contraceptives prevent implantation and IVF creates more embryos than needed. Both are no-no’s under the new regime. Do you have any examples

by imgabe 4y ago

> Note that most contraceptives prevent implantation and IVF creates more embryos than needed. Both are no-no’s under the new regime. Do you have any examples of specific laws of in any states that would make contraception or IVF illegal? Most pro-life people are very supportive of IVF as they are all about people having more babies. Many states with anti-abortion laws also have laws explicitly making surrogacy legal (which requires IVF).

jleyank 4y ago
Every state that defines life begins at conception rather than heartbeat or viability. The supremes already mentioned contraception and ivf willingly discards embryos that are not needed.
- imgabe 4y ago
  The supreme court doesn't write laws, they only interpret them. Laws are very specifically written and often include enumerated exceptions and specific scenarios. They don't just say "Life begins at conception and that's that".
  - jleyank 4y ago
    Oklahoma has proposed. Supremes removed all limits on laws. “Not mentioned in constitution” applies to all sorts of things.
    - imgabe 4y ago
      > Though the bill considers a pregnancy to begin at fertilization, and not implantation, the bill does not restrict the use of forms of contraception that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a uterus. According to the bill, abortion "does not include the use, prescription, administration, procuring, or selling of Plan B, morning-after pills, or any other type of contraception or emergency contraception." It doesn't mention anything about IVF, but as that doesn't involve an abortion procedure it would probably not be affected either. The bill does not propose what you're saying it does. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/19/politics/oklahoma-abortion-ban-hb-4327-passed/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/19/politics/oklahoma-abortio...
  - spacemanmatt 4y ago
    > The supreme court doesn't write laws, they only interpret them. That is a technical fiction. The Supreme Court rewrites laws all the time. They are the line-item veto a President is not allowed to have.
    - spacemanmatt 4y ago
      You don't have to like it. This is literally the system we suffer.
diob 4y ago
It's not about making it illegal, it's that IVF typically results in more fertilized embryos than are kept. So like you said, the pro-life folks would force every single one to be kept.
- imgabe 4y ago
  Do you have an example of any pro-life lawmaker, pundit, anyone demanding that all embryos from IVF be kept?
  - kibwen 4y ago
    This is a natural result of placing the cutoff at conception.
    - imgabe 4y ago
      No, it's not the natural result of anything. Like I said above, laws are very specifically worded in what they allow and prohibit. They are written by and for human beings. They are not computer programs which mindlessly execute every possible logical consequence.
  - gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
    Yes, Ben Shapiro. IVF is slippy slope. Don't make any more embryos than you will implant and carry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cETGY6U9wfQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cETGY6U9wfQ
  - belltaco 4y ago
    Yes. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-politics-of-the-embryo/#:~:text=On%20the%20federal%20level%2C%20Senator,and%20such%20groups%20as%20the https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-politics-of-the...
    - diob 4y ago
      This person is in no way interested in facts, they'll move the goalposts again after it becomes widespread practice.
mch82 4y ago
> Do you have any examples These rights and others are directly questioned in the text of the SCOTUS concurrence today: "For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” Neal Katyal: “That's right to privacy, contraception, marriage equality,etc” https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1540341236803977216 https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1540341236803977216
- imgabe 4y ago
  I mean examples of laws. Like is there any state that has passed or even proposed a law saying "contraception is illegal". To my knowledge, there's not.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
  - bcrosby95 4y ago
    I dunno, the comstock act? The way SCOTUS works is they render it impossible to enforce a law. It doesn't actually remove the law from the books. It's a legal hack - the government can't enforce it when its made unconstitutional, but it still exists unless they explicitly remove it. Hence Texas' legal hack of allowing citizens to enforce a law.
    - BarryMilo 4y ago
      Which is completely fucking bonkers and should be squashed ASAP, lest these states go completely rogue.
  - mch82 4y ago
    Here you go: https://www.findlaw.com/family/reproductive-rights/griswold-v-connecticut-and-the-right-to-contraceptives.html https://www.findlaw.com/family/reproductive-rights/griswold-... > At the time, a Connecticut law prohibited the use of "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception" and punished anyone who "assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another" to do so (in other words, it wasn't a crime to sell birth control devices, but it was a crime to use birth control or any drug or medical instrument for the purposes of preventing conception). > Griswold and Buxton sued the State of Connecticut claiming the law violated their constitutional rights. The issue at stake was whether a married couple had a constitutional "right of privacy" to be counseled in the use of contraceptives. Three other major cases are cited in that FindLaw article, the most recent in 2014 which took away rights to healthcare coverage.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
Of course not, but that is the natural progression of forcing evangelical/Catholic morals on all Americans as current Republican leadership is pushing for. I hope it blows up in their face and Americans wake up to the coming Republican attempt to install Trump as dictator for life.

by imgabe 4y ago

jleyank 4y ago

Every state that defines life begins at conception rather than heartbeat or viability. The supremes already mentioned contraception and ivf willingly discards embryos that are not needed.

imgabe 4y ago
The supreme court doesn't write laws, they only interpret them. Laws are very specifically written and often include enumerated exceptions and specific scenarios. They don't just say "Life begins at conception and that's that".
- jleyank 4y ago
  Oklahoma has proposed. Supremes removed all limits on laws. “Not mentioned in constitution” applies to all sorts of things.
  - imgabe 4y ago
    > Though the bill considers a pregnancy to begin at fertilization, and not implantation, the bill does not restrict the use of forms of contraception that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a uterus. According to the bill, abortion "does not include the use, prescription, administration, procuring, or selling of Plan B, morning-after pills, or any other type of contraception or emergency contraception." It doesn't mention anything about IVF, but as that doesn't involve an abortion procedure it would probably not be affected either. The bill does not propose what you're saying it does. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/19/politics/oklahoma-abortion-ban-hb-4327-passed/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/19/politics/oklahoma-abortio...
- spacemanmatt 4y ago
  > The supreme court doesn't write laws, they only interpret them. That is a technical fiction. The Supreme Court rewrites laws all the time. They are the line-item veto a President is not allowed to have.
  - spacemanmatt 4y ago
    You don't have to like it. This is literally the system we suffer.

diob 4y ago

It's not about making it illegal, it's that IVF typically results in more fertilized embryos than are kept. So like you said, the pro-life folks would force every single one to be kept.

imgabe 4y ago
Do you have an example of any pro-life lawmaker, pundit, anyone demanding that all embryos from IVF be kept?
- kibwen 4y ago
  This is a natural result of placing the cutoff at conception.
  - imgabe 4y ago
    No, it's not the natural result of anything. Like I said above, laws are very specifically worded in what they allow and prohibit. They are written by and for human beings. They are not computer programs which mindlessly execute every possible logical consequence.
- gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
  Yes, Ben Shapiro. IVF is slippy slope. Don't make any more embryos than you will implant and carry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cETGY6U9wfQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cETGY6U9wfQ
- belltaco 4y ago
  Yes. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-politics-of-the-embryo/#:~:text=On%20the%20federal%20level%2C%20Senator,and%20such%20groups%20as%20the https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-politics-of-the...
  - diob 4y ago
    This person is in no way interested in facts, they'll move the goalposts again after it becomes widespread practice.

mch82 4y ago

> Do you have any examples These rights and others are directly questioned in the text of the SCOTUS concurrence today: "For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” Neal Katyal: “That's right to privacy, contraception, marriage equality,etc” https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1540341236803977216 https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1540341236803977216

imgabe 4y ago
I mean examples of laws. Like is there any state that has passed or even proposed a law saying "contraception is illegal". To my knowledge, there's not.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
- bcrosby95 4y ago
  I dunno, the comstock act? The way SCOTUS works is they render it impossible to enforce a law. It doesn't actually remove the law from the books. It's a legal hack - the government can't enforce it when its made unconstitutional, but it still exists unless they explicitly remove it. Hence Texas' legal hack of allowing citizens to enforce a law.
  - BarryMilo 4y ago
    Which is completely fucking bonkers and should be squashed ASAP, lest these states go completely rogue.
- mch82 4y ago
  Here you go: https://www.findlaw.com/family/reproductive-rights/griswold-v-connecticut-and-the-right-to-contraceptives.html https://www.findlaw.com/family/reproductive-rights/griswold-... > At the time, a Connecticut law prohibited the use of "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception" and punished anyone who "assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another" to do so (in other words, it wasn't a crime to sell birth control devices, but it was a crime to use birth control or any drug or medical instrument for the purposes of preventing conception). > Griswold and Buxton sued the State of Connecticut claiming the law violated their constitutional rights. The issue at stake was whether a married couple had a constitutional "right of privacy" to be counseled in the use of contraceptives. Three other major cases are cited in that FindLaw article, the most recent in 2014 which took away rights to healthcare coverage.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

Of course not, but that is the natural progression of forcing evangelical/Catholic morals on all Americans as current Republican leadership is pushing for. I hope it blows up in their face and Americans wake up to the coming Republican attempt to install Trump as dictator for life.