Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Open Club  ·  46 members  ·  Free

OOB v2.0

Roe -V- Wade......Back at it again (finally?)


swordfish

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Indiana’s Republican supermajority General Assembly plans to address the state’s abortion laws during a July 6 special session. Get ready for the sh*tshow to end all sh*tshows.

Yep, funny that Mr. Holcomb called that special session not to address abortion, but to get the legislature to issue a tax refund of $250 per taxpayer back to Hoosiers. Who know if that legislation will actually pass now with everybody focused on this, as you say, "sh*tshow to end all sh*tshows."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those extolling the overturning of Roe as a victory for “states’ rights,” be careful what you ask for. Roe was grounded in an interpretation of the 5th and 14th amendments that recognized a fundamental right of individual privacy, which included the right to determine what happens with the individual’s own body. This decision is a giant step toward rolling back the notion that the Constitution embodies a right of privacy. Is that what you really want? If no, how are you going to stop the train as it gains momentum?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

quote-catholicism-is-more-than-a-religio

Time to bring back this guy. @Irishman

At least the Catholic church’s stance is consistent and based on doctrine, regardless whether you believe it right or wrong. I firmly believe that many of those cheering this decision do so out of their desire to misogynistically legislate morality. It’s a powerful blow in favor of the double standard. All I’ll say at this point is “Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.” They took away something that was viewed as a constitutional right for almost 50 years. They can take away others just as easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2022 at 2:40 PM, Bobref said:

Indiana’s Republican supermajority General Assembly plans to address the state’s abortion laws during a July 6 special session. Get ready for the sh*tshow to end all sh*tshows.

Until the mid terms and the national R’s say hold my beer……and we end up with Mayor Pete or some such being prez in 24. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bobref said:

At least the Catholic church’s stance is consistent and based on doctrine, regardless whether you believe it right or wrong. I firmly believe that many of those cheering this decision do so out of their desire to misogynistically legislate morality. It’s a powerful blow in favor of the double standard. All I’ll say at this point is “Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.” They took away something that was viewed as a constitutional right for almost 50 years. They can take away others just as easily.

Just out of curiosity do we know which justices voted for cert in this case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Just out of curiosity do we know which justices voted for cert in this case?

It takes 4 justices to grant certiorari and those votes are not made public, although very occasionally a Justice will write a dissent after a vote. But even in the rare cases where that happens, it’s usually a dissent from the denial of cert, not a grant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bobref said:

It takes 4 justices to grant certiorari and those votes are not made public, although very occasionally a Justice will write a dissent after a vote. But even in the rare cases where that happens, it’s usually a dissent from the denial of cert, not a grant.

I have a bit of an issue with those claiming that the court succumbed to political pressure or it has become politicized. Politics plays a role in everything. For instance, the court has not taken a 2A case in 10 years. The conventional thinking is the conservative justices would never grant Cert for fear of Roberts. Then suddenly when Robert’s vote becomes moot, suddenly they’re taking a crucial 2A case. 
As I have said before, in politics there’s nothing new under the sun. I have been thrilled with SCOTUS findings and I have been quite dismayed at SCOTUS rulings. It’s not like I have any control over it. And the sun will still come up tomorrow. I stayed in downtown Bloomington Friday night and they were all fired up around the courthouse, which is awesome, but I’m not really sure what leading chants with a bullhorn at the closed courthouse in Bloomington is going to help your cause. You better get in the phone with your local IGA representatives,  before the Idiot R leadership in the state really screws the pooch for all Hoosiers. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

I have a bit of an issue with those claiming that the court succumbed to political pressure or it has become politicized. Politics plays a role in everything. For instance, the court has not taken a 2A case in 10 years. The conventional thinking is the conservative justices would never grant Cert for fear of Roberts. Then suddenly when Robert’s vote becomes moot, suddenly they’re taking a crucial 2A case. 
As I have said before, in politics there’s nothing new under the sun. I have been thrilled with SCOTUS findings and I have been quite dismayed at SCOTUS rulings. It’s not like I have any control over it. And the sun will still come up tomorrow. I stayed in downtown Bloomington Friday night and they were all fired up around the courthouse, which is awesome, but I’m not really sure what leading chants with a bullhorn at the closed courthouse in Bloomington is going to help your cause. You better get in the phone with your local IGA representatives,  before the Idiot R leadership in the state really screws the pooch for all Hoosiers. 

I don’t know if the Court has become more political or not. But I know the perception is that it has. Like any institution, the legitimacy of the Court’s rulings depends on the public’s belief that it is doing what’s right, not what’s politically expedient. I worry that the Court’s stature is diminishing. A great many Americans already believe that the Executive and Legislative branches no longer do the job the Constitution assigns to them. The Court has always been a bastion of independence and stability. Our system of checks and balances depends on it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Bobrefas a person in the know, what is your opinion on the basis for the findings in Roe? Was it solid legal principle or was it flawed? 
FWIW, I don’t think this opens the door to contraception, same sex marriage, etc. Over the years the public pretty much accepts these things. Abortion however has never gained the public support like these other issues. I would venture to guess that at the time of Roe, a majority of Americans would have been against Roe. I would also venture a guess if we could poll the nation right slightly less than a majority are in favor of Roe’s over turning. The bottom line is, in the last 50 years the Public’s opinion hasn’t changed. About half of the nation is pro abortion and about half the nation is anti abortion. And this will continue to be a divisive social wedge issue until that public opinion changes. What the court has done is most like created a situation where we will have a patchwork of ever changing (everything the party in charge changes) abortion laws. This in my opinion could lead to abortion exhaustion where people are just sick of listening to it and time it out. Much like our recent mask/vax nonsense. 

  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

as a person in the know, what is your opinion on the basis for the findings in Roe? Was it solid legal principle or was it flawed? 

Roe was based on an expansive reading of the 5th and 14th Amendment. But its “right of privacy” is certainly not the only “right” considered constitutionally guaranteed that is not explicitly set out in the constitution. And it was not the first case that recognized, and was based on, a constitutional right of privacy. Following the reasoning of the Dobbs decision, all of those other decisions recognizing such a right in a variety of contexts are now at risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2022 at 11:35 AM, Bobref said:

At least the Catholic church’s stance is consistent and based on doctrine, regardless whether you believe it right or wrong. I firmly believe that many of those cheering this decision do so out of their desire to misogynistically legislate morality. It’s a powerful blow in favor of the double standard. All I’ll say at this point is “Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.” They took away something that was viewed as a constitutional right for almost 50 years. They can take away others just as easily.

I saw this on Facebook. Mind you, I'm not the maker of this meme, nor the original poster-

xTLNfZt.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

@Bobrefas a person in the know, what is your opinion on the basis for the findings in Roe? Was it solid legal principle or was it flawed? 
FWIW, I don’t think this opens the door to contraception, same sex marriage, etc. Over the years the public pretty much accepts these things. Abortion however has never gained the public support like these other issues. I would venture to guess that at the time of Roe, a majority of Americans would have been against Roe. I would also venture a guess if we could poll the nation right slightly less than a majority are in favor of Roe’s over turning. The bottom line is, in the last 50 years the Public’s opinion hasn’t changed. About half of the nation is pro abortion and about half the nation is anti abortion. And this will continue to be a divisive social wedge issue until that public opinion changes. What the court has done is most like created a situation where we will have a patchwork of ever changing (everything the party in charge changes) abortion laws. This in my opinion could lead to abortion exhaustion where people are just sick of listening to it and time it out. Much like our recent mask/vax nonsense. 

The truth is only about 8% of the nation is against "all" abortion. 

And another 14% are against but are willing to concede in certain situations it should be allowed such as medically necessary, rape, etc.


42% - support abortion without restriction.

24% - support abortion but with restriction such as time limits, waiting periods, mandatory counseling, etc.


and the intelligent 12% left were taught when to keep there mouth shut and had no opinion.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SF's take - It appears the focus is on the states (s#!*show) to sort this out amongst themselves instead of pressuring congress to address this for the country.  Kinda like they wanted this one for the main wedge issue in the 2022 midterms (since the current administration has F-ed things up so bad) and they will likely be losing their control over both houses of congress.

Which brings me to the "nuclear option" the Democrats have been threatening as of late.  They didn't use it during the voting rights legislation debates, but is abortion a big enough issue for them to hang their hat on?  I don't think so, but then what is?  They are losing so much of their base of voters right now, the nuclear option may be the only hope they have, but I don't they have the guts to use it, and I also don't think it will help anyhow.....

And that is why SF thinks the focus is off of Congress doing their job to "protect the rights of a woman to choose"......if they even want to define a woman.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a friend's post on Facebook.  Makes sense to me.....
 
As a lawyer, I have read and understand the opinion. The constitution doesn’t protect the unborn so it isn’t a constitutional issue for SCOTUS to consider which means it is up to the states to regulate. And that is what the opinion said.
Understand that Roe didn’t grant access to abortions it merely struck down a Texas law that criminalized abortion.
This wasn’t a political ruling because a strong legal (constitutional) argument was set forth. In fact, Roe actually legislated from the bench which is something SCOTUS should never do.
Today I opened my Con Law book and reread Roe v Wade and Casey v Planned Parenthood and then I read today’s opinion.
The Mississippi law was good and fair (allowing abortion until 15 weeks) but a clinic challenged and opened Pandora’s box. They allowed good law to become to key to open doors.
If you want to place blame, place it on the clinic that challenged good law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a white male “senior citizen, raised a Catholic, and almost retired from a long white collar career. I do not consider myself a liberal. I didn’t vote for Clinton, Obama, or Biden. The Dobbs decision is unlikely to ever affect me in a direct way. But if I were a person of color, or a woman, or a Muslim, or a member of the LGBTQ community, I’d be scared sh*tless right now. Dobbs and the coach’s prayer case tell me that the Christian Right is in control. If the GOP gets control of the House in the midterm elections, we are going to see many, many freedoms that were previously thought firmly entrenched get rolled back. We may well be entering a period when intolerance will reach new heights in this country. We are supposed to be an enlightened society. But I fear the 21st century equivalent of the Dark Ages is looming.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Bobref said:

I am a white male “senior citizen, raised a Catholic, and almost retired from a long white collar career. I do not consider myself a liberal. I didn’t vote for Clinton, Obama, or Biden. The Dobbs decision is unlikely to ever affect me in a direct way. But if I were a person of color, or a woman, or a Muslim, or a member of the LGBTQ community, I’d be scared sh*tless right now. Dobbs and the coach’s prayer case tell me that the Christian Right is in control. If the GOP gets control of the House in the midterm elections, we are going to see many, many freedoms that were previously thought firmly entrenched get rolled back. We may well be entering a period when intolerance will reach new heights in this country. We are supposed to be an enlightened society. But I fear the 21st century equivalent of the Dark Ages is looming.

Ehhh, I think you give the R’s too much credit, whatever they try to do, they’ll blow it, they always do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Bobref said:

Governor Pritzker has announced that, Dobbs notwithstanding, Illinois will continue to offer women “the full range of reproductive healthcare.”

Which is probably where the majority of Indiana women who want an abortion will travel to for the procedure, once the Indiana Legislature passes legislation during it's July 6th special session to at least severely restrict the practice.

I know of at least one liberal progressive acquaintance of mine who has offered transportation to/from Illinois for women when such a law is passed in Indiana.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bobref said:

I am a white male “senior citizen, raised a Catholic, and almost retired from a long white collar career. I do not consider myself a liberal. I didn’t vote for Clinton, Obama, or Biden. The Dobbs decision is unlikely to ever affect me in a direct way. But if I were a person of color, or a woman, or a Muslim, or a member of the LGBTQ community, I’d be scared sh*tless right now. Dobbs and the coach’s prayer case tell me that the Christian Right is in control. If the GOP gets control of the House in the midterm elections, we are going to see many, many freedoms that were previously thought firmly entrenched get rolled back. We may well be entering a period when intolerance will reach new heights in this country. We are supposed to be an enlightened society. But I fear the 21st century equivalent of the Dark Ages is looming.

main-qimg-f542676c98bb0299b72c5da88c391898-lq

Soon to become real?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Which is probably where the majority of Indiana women who want an abortion will travel to for the procedure, once the Indiana Legislature passes legislation during it's July 6th special session to at least severely restrict the practice.

I know of at least one liberal progressive acquaintance of mine who has offered transportation to/from Illinois for women when such a law is passed in Indiana.

In fact, Indiana has several such laws already on the books. They just weren’t enforced because of federal court injunctions. Indiana attorney general Todd Rokita (sad to say, a Munster guy) has already asked the 7th Circuit to dissolve those injunctions, based on Dobbs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The danger of license plate readers in post-Roe America

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/07/the-danger-of-license-plate-readers-in-post-roe-america/

Quote

Since the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last month, America’s extensive surveillance state could soon be turned against those seeking abortions or providing abortion care.

Currently, nine states have almost entirely banned abortion, and more are expected to follow suit. Many Republican lawmakers in these states are discussing the possibility of preventing people from traveling across state lines to obtain an abortion. If such plans are enacted and withstand legal scrutiny, one of the key technologies that could be deployed to track people trying to cross state lines is automated license plate readers (ALPRs). They’re employed heavily by police forces across the US, but they’re also used by private actors.

ALPRs are cameras that are mounted on street poles, overpasses, and elsewhere that can identify and capture license plate numbers on passing cars for the purpose of issuing speeding tickets and tolls, locating stolen cars, and more. State and local police maintain databases of captured license plates and frequently use those databases in criminal investigations.

The police have access to not only license plate data collected by their own ALPRs but also data gathered by private companies. Firms like Flock Safety and Motorola Solutions have their own networks of ALPRs that are mounted to the vehicles of private companies and organizations they work with, such as car repossession outfits. Flock, for instance, claims it’s collecting license plate data in roughly 1,500 cities and can capture data from over a billion vehicles every month.

“They have fleets of cars that have ALPRs on them that just suck up data. They sell that to various clients, including repo firms and government agencies. They also sell them to police departments,” says Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the ACLU. “It’s a giant, nationwide mass surveillance system. That obviously has serious implications should interstate travel become part of forced-birth enforcement.”

In a statement to WIRED, a Flock Safety spokesperson said the company does not provide customer data to third parties. “We will never share or sell customer data to any third parties. While we cannot speak for any other vendors, we have never and will never sell data to repossession companies or third-party organizations, including anti-abortion groups," the company said.

However, anyone can become a first party by purchasing the company's cameras. (Its customers often include neighborhoods and home owners associations.) Flock Safety says its cameras are installed in more than 1,500 cities in 42 states, which are connected to Flock's centralized camera network. A March 2021 Vice investigation based on Flock-related emails obtained from nearly 20 police departments allows anyone who administers a Flock camera to “make the data Flock captures available to, say, the police, the home owner association's board, or the individual members of an entire neighborhood.” In addition to private customers, Flock has also reportedly partnered with hundreds of police departments across the US.

Motorola Solutions did not respond to a request for comment prior to publication.

Stanley says that ALPRs are more concentrated in metropolitan areas, but they’re also common in rural areas. If someone is traveling out of state to get an abortion, police could likely repeatedly identify where their license plate was scanned during the trip and the times it was scanned. With that information, they may be able to sketch out that person’s travel patterns. Police don’t need a warrant to obtain this information because license plates are out in the open and can be seen by anyone, which is not necessarily the case when the police want to obtain someone’s location data from their phone or use another tracking method.

“The more densely situated ALPR scanners are, the more they come to resemble GPS tracking,” Stanley says.

Once the person seeking an abortion has left the state, a police department could look for license plate data in another state through the private databases, or they could obtain this data via a police department in that state. Police departments around the country regularly share ALPR data with each other, and the data is often shared with little oversight.

“It’s a huge problem that people are sharing data without really being deliberate about who they’re sharing it with and why,” says Dave Maass, director of investigations for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

Maass notes that police aren’t the only ones who could utilize ALPR data to track people seeking abortion access. Thanks to the passage of Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), he says anti-abortion groups could use license plate data in litigation against whole swaths of people. That law allows anyone in the US to sue abortion providers, anyone who “aids or abets” someone seeking an abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected (typically around six weeks)—or anyone with intent to help someone receive an illegal abortion in the state. Anti-abortion groups have also been known to write down people’s license plate numbers at abortion clinics over the years, Maass notes, so they may even have a database of license plate numbers already available to them that they could search through.

“One of the things I’m concerned about is this big private database that is operated by DRN Data. It’s not necessarily law enforcement but individual actors who might be trying to enforce abortion laws under things like Texas’ SB 8,” Maass says.

DRN Data operates a license plate reader database that receives its data from repo trucks and other vehicles equipped with ALPRs. (DRN Data did not yet respond to WIRED’s request for comment.) Regardless of who’s operating them, there’s no shortage of license plate scanners, and both Maass and Stanley say it would be extremely difficult for someone seeking an abortion to avoid being surveilled along the way.

“You could take an Uber, but that’s going to create a different data trail. You could rent a car, but that’s a different data trail. You could ride the bus, but that’s a different data trail,” Maass says.

One policy change that could help address this issue is if states would adopt the same kind of legislation that New Hampshire has, Stanley says. Its statute states that ALPR data “shall not be recorded or transmitted anywhere and shall be purged from the system within three minutes of their capture, unless the number resulted in an arrest, a citation, or protective custody or identified a vehicle that was the subject of a missing or wanted person broadcast.” This type of law would prevent police departments from retaining data that could be utilized for long periods.

Like abortion laws, ALPR regulations vary state by state. New Hampshire isn’t storing this data for long, but Arkansas—which last month criminalized nearly all abortion care—allows the data to be stored for 150 days. Other states may limit license plate data storage to between 21 and 90 days. Georgia, whose pending law would ban abortions after the detection of fetal cardiac activity, allows police to store license plate data for up to 30 months after collection. Maass says these issues will have to be addressed throughout the country.

“Legislators need to be looking at this. Law enforcement needs to talk to their city council members about how they’re going to address this,” Maass says. “Attorneys general who are claiming they’re going to protect abortion access need to look at their data systems. A lot of this is going to have to be dealt with in a policy context.”

ALPRs are just one of the many surveillance tools police departments and anti-abortion groups will have available to them, but they’ll become one of the most powerful tools available if states manage to make it illegal to cross state lines to obtain an abortion. For states that seek to safeguard access to abortion care, there’s little time to assess how this technology is being utilized and whether policies need to be altered to limit its use.

So will the Indiana State Police and other Indiana law enforcement agencies be watching the Indiana/Illinois border closely?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...