We're Not Going Back to the Time Before Roe. We're Going Somewhere Worse

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

The New Yorker
@NewYorker
·
Follow
Today, more than half of all abortions in the U.S. are medication abortions. Ordering pills in states that prohibit abortions will be unlawful, leaving women in those states to have to choose between risking their freedom and risking their health.

newyorker.com
We’re Not Going Back to the Time Before Roe. We’re Going Somewhere Worse
We are entering an era not just of unsafe abortions but of the widespread criminalization of pregnancy.
10:38 PM · Jun 27, 2022

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/07/04/we-are-not-going-back-to-the-time-before-roe-we-are-going-somewhere-worse

No paywall
https://archive.ph/8a8Ke

In the weeks since a draft of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization—a case about a Mississippi law that bans abortion after fifteen weeks, with some health-related exceptions but none for rape or incest—was leaked, a slogan has been revived: “We won’t go back.” It has been chanted at marches, defiantly but also somewhat awkwardly, given that this is plainly an era of repression and regression, in which abortion rights are not the only rights disappearing. Now that the Supreme Court has issued its final decision, overturning Roe v. Wade and removing the constitutional right to abortion, insuring that abortion will become illegal or highly restricted in twenty states, the slogan sounds almost divorced from reality—an indication, perhaps, of how difficult it has become to comprehend the power and the right-wing extremism of the current Supreme Court.

Support for abortion has never been higher, with more than two-thirds of Americans in favor of retaining Roe, and fifty-seven per cent affirming a woman’s right to abortion for any reason. Even so, there are Republican officials who have made it clear that they will attempt to pass a federal ban on abortion if and when they control both chambers of Congress and the Presidency. Anyone who can get pregnant must now face the reality that half of the country is in the hands of legislators who believe that your personhood and autonomy are conditional—who believe that, if you are impregnated by another person, under any circumstance, you have a legal and moral duty to undergo pregnancy, delivery, and, in all likelihood, two decades or more of caregiving, no matter the permanent and potentially devastating consequences for your body, your heart, your mind, your family, your ability to put food on the table, your plans, your aspirations, your life.

“We won’t go back”—it’s an inadequate rallying cry, prompted only by events that belie its message. But it is true in at least one sense. The future that we now inhabit will not resemble the past before Roe, when women sought out illegal abortions and not infrequently found death. The principal danger now lies elsewhere, and arguably reaches further. We have entered an era not of unsafe abortion but of widespread state surveillance and criminalization—of pregnant women, certainly, but also of doctors and pharmacists and clinic staffers and volunteers and friends and family members, of anyone who comes into meaningful contact with a pregnancy that does not end in a healthy birth. Those who argue that this decision won’t actually change things much—an instinct you’ll find on both sides of the political divide—are blind to the ways in which state-level anti-abortion crusades have already turned pregnancy into punishment, and the ways in which the situation is poised to become much worse.

In the states where abortion has been or will soon be banned, any pregnancy loss past an early cutoff can now potentially be investigated as a crime. Search histories, browsing histories, text messages, location data, payment data, information from period-tracking apps—prosecutors can examine all of it if they believe that the loss of a pregnancy may have been deliberate. Even if prosecutors fail to prove that an abortion took place, those who are investigated will be punished by the process, liable for whatever might be found.

*snip*

[PortTack]

1. Merrick Garland put out a statement saying the states cannot pass laws that restrict the use of

These medications. You can look it up. It was posted here Sunday

[Nevilledog]

2. It'll go to SCROTUS and they'll say it can be restricted.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/garland-signals-brewing-battle-gop-led-states-access-abortion-pills-rcna35231


*snip*

Legal experts predicted there would be numerous court challenges following Friday's court ruling.

Khiara M. Bridges, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said “there’s an open legal question about whether states could limit the use of mifepristone in light of the FDA’s judgment that the medicine is safe and effective. It’s not at all clear.”

While the FDA can can declare the drug is safe, Bridges said, “states can regulate the practice of medicine within their borders."

The drug’s manufacturer, GenBioPro, filed suit against Mississippi in October 2020 challenging a state law that hampers access to the drug, contending that the statute conflicts with federal law. The case is still pending.

Bridges said the Justice Department could sue any states restricting access to the drug, but noted such challenges could take years to make their way through courts. “I think we’re going to see a lot of legal questions,” she said.

Wendy Parmet, director of the Center for Health Policy and Law at Northeastern University, said it's unclear “whether the FDA can preempt a state’s prohibition" on mifepristone.

*snip*

[PortTack]

4. They may try..federal prevails in this arguement

Garland’s mention of the FDA approval of the drug is a nod toward the federal preemption argument, says Rachel Rebouché, interim dean of Temple University Beasley School of Law. That argument is based on the premise that where federal and state laws conflict, the federal law prevails. In this case, that would mean a safety and efficacy determination by the FDA, a federal agency, would take precedence over a state’s tighter restrictions on a given drug.

https://time.com/6191270/abortion-pills-bans-fda-merrick-garland/

[Nevilledog]

5. Have you met the Supreme Court?

As far as I'm concerned, all norms are totally gone and they're just gonna do whatever they want.

[PortTack]

6. In the meantime it would take months maybe or at least a year

To come to the steps of scotus.

I highly commend AG Garland for his stance

As mentioned in your previous post the current suit brought by the drug maker is still pending. If it were a slam dunk, it wouldn’t still be pending

[Scrivener7]

10. That isn't a "stance." It's an interpretation of current law. It's probably correct as of

today, but that means nothing about whether it will be law tomorrow given this Supreme Court.

[Hekate]

7. The author of this piece is right: the surveillance state this engenders endangers us all

Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive

[Cheezoholic]

8. I wonder if the underground market is ramping up

to sell these medications on the street either from illicit sources or out of country sources. A further danger to women desperate for help not just from unregulated illicit medication but also the possibility of violating state drug laws on top of the illegal abortion laws.
It's sickening

[Freddie]

9. I'm sure it's already started

Thinking about offering a service - anyone needs abortion pills, call (do not text or email) me. I will happily pose as a patient and order them for you. I’m 65. Let them search my phone and prove I was trying to “self-abort.”

[Scrivener7]

11. I'm trying to think of how my post-menopausal self can get involved in something

like this for the same reason.

Why do I want those pills? They taste yummy. Prove different.

[Solly Mack]

12. K&R