Roe v Wade has been overturned. How do you feel about that?

[N.E. Brigand]

And in Florida, the state legislature today passed a six-week abortion ban. Will Gov. Ron DeSantis sign it into law?

He signed it. Abortions are now prohibited by law in Florida after six weeks.

[Frelga]

Which means entirely forbidden. Gestational age is counted from the date of last period, so this is 4 weeks post conception on average, when many women don't even suspect a pregnancy.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[N.E. Brigand]

The Supreme Court has stayed Judge Kacsmaryk's ruling (which banned mifepristone) pending appeal. Justices Thomas and Alito dissent, the latter with an opinion.

[N.E. Brigand]

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, said today during a Congressional hearing that adopted parents aren't really parents.

[Sunsilver]

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, said today during a Congressional hearing that adopted parents aren't really parents.

Throughout most of my life, my mom had a poem stuck in the corner of her dresser mirror titled "The Answer to an Adopted Child". I don't recall the whole of it but the last line was "you didn't grow under my heart, but in it."

My dislike for MTG, which was already very strong, just got taken to a whole new level!

Edit: okay, listened to her actual speech, which was so nasty that another representative made a formal complaint about the way she was speaking to Rep. Weinstein. Weinstein is married to another woman, who is the biological mother of their child. I doubt she would have addressed a woman who was in a heterosexual relationship, and had a stepchild that way. But of course, in Greene's eyes, if you're gay, you shouldn't be a parent...

[N.E. Brigand]

The Associated Press reports: "A first-of-its-kind federal investigation has found two hospitals put a pregnant woman's life in jeopardy and violated federal law by refusing to provide an emergency abortion when she experienced premature labor at 17 weeks." The hospitals were in Missouri and Kansas. "Doctors at both hospitals told Mylissa Farmer that her fetus would not survive, that her amniotic fluid had emptied and that she was at risk for serious infection or losing her uterus, but they would not terminate the pregnancy because a fetal heartbeat was still detectable." She traveled more than three hours to Illinois. The federal government only warned the hospitals but did not fincially penalize them.

[RoseMorninStar]

There was segment on 60 minutes last night. Today women in the US are twice as likely to die from pregnancy complications than their mothers were a generation ago. In places like Louisiana where doctors have been threatened with incarceration, they are leaving practice or moving.

[N.E. Brigand]

In North Carolina, the Republican controlled legislature passed a 12-week abortion ban. The state's Democratic governor, Roy Cooper, then vetoed that bill, but tonight the legislature voted to override his veto. This wouldn't have been possible if one Democratic legislature who campaigned on her support for abortion rights switched parties after being elected and gave the Republicans a veto-proof majority.

[N.E. Brigand]

In North Carolina, the Republican controlled legislature passed a 12-week abortion ban. The state's Democratic governor, Roy Cooper, then vetoed that bill, but tonight the legislature voted to override his veto. This wouldn't have been possible if one Democratic legislature who campaigned on her support for abortion rights switched parties after being elected and gave the Republicans a veto-proof majority.

Just five months ago, that representative, Tricia Cotham, said that Roe v. Wade should be part of the state's constitution. What an absolute betrayal.

[RoseMorninStar]

In North Carolina, the Republican controlled legislature passed a 12-week abortion ban. The state's Democratic governor, Roy Cooper, then vetoed that bill, but tonight the legislature voted to override his veto. This wouldn't have been possible if one Democratic legislature who campaigned on her support for abortion rights switched parties after being elected and gave the Republicans a veto-proof majority.

Just five months ago, that representative, Tricia Cotham, said that Roe v. Wade should be part of the state's constitution. What an absolute betrayal.

Yeah.. the about face could make ones head spin. Like it was perhaps orchestrated.

[N.E. Brigand]

Here in Ohio, there are efforts to get a measure on the ballot in November that if passed by voters would codify the right to an abortion in the state's constitution.

Ohio Republicans fear that such a measure would succeed, so they're trying to prevent it by undermining democracy. They're pushing to place a measure on the ballot in August by which Ohio's voters would be asked to raise the threshold needed to amend the state constitution at the ballot box from 50% of the vote (the current requirement) up to 60% of the vote. In short, a minority of the population would be in a position to impose their will on all Ohio women. The underhanded Republican measure would also require citizen-initiated ballot petitions to gather a certain percentage of signatures from all 88 Ohio counties (currently that's only needed from 44 counties) and would eliminate a 10-day period in which ballot signature deficiencies can be cured: any mistake would lead to an initiative being tossed.

The whole concept is just hideous. If you're going to ask voters to raise a threshold from 50% to 60%, then you ought to be required to get 60% in the first place -- or you ought to be able to repeal this change later by just 50% of the vote. To do otherwise is plainly undemocratic. I would say that it's so wrong that 40% of the population can control 60% of the population that extreme measures would be justified to change that. This is not like the Senate filibuster, which can in fact by removed by 50% of the members of the Senate, if they so choose. And it's not like the supermajority requirements in the U.S. Constitution, which were compromises measures needed to enact the Constitution in the first place. (The current 50% threshold for amending Ohio's constitution has been in place since 1912.) This is the kind of tyrannical anti-representation the nation's founders were responding to.

And of course Republicans are scheduling it for a time when they know turnout will be low. Even so, they're still afraid they won't win, so they're using deceptive language (there will be a court challenge about that point).

[N.E. Brigand]

Here in Ohio, there are efforts to get a measure on the ballot in November that if passed by voters would codify the right to an abortion in the state's constitution.

Ohio Republicans fear that such a measure would succeed, so they're trying to prevent it by undermining democracy. They're pushing to place a measure on the ballot in August by which Ohio's voters would be asked to raise the threshold needed to amend the state constitution at the ballot box from 50% of the vote (the current requirement) up to 60% of the vote. In short, a minority of the population would be in a position to impose their will on all Ohio women. The underhanded Republican measure would also require citizen-initiated ballot petitions to gather a certain percentage of signatures from all 88 Ohio counties (currently that's only needed from 44 counties) and would eliminate a 10-day period in which ballot signature deficiencies can be cured: any mistake would lead to an initiative being tossed.

The whole concept is just hideous. If you're going to ask voters to raise a threshold from 50% to 60%, then you ought to be required to get 60% in the first place -- or you ought to be able to repeal this change later by just 50% of the vote. To do otherwise is plainly undemocratic. I would say that it's so wrong that 40% of the population can control 60% of the population that extreme measures would be justified to change that. This is not like the Senate filibuster, which can in fact by removed by 50% of the members of the Senate, if they so choose. And it's not like the supermajority requirements in the U.S. Constitution, which were compromises measures needed to enact the Constitution in the first place. (The current 50% threshold for amending Ohio's constitution has been in place since 1912.) This is the kind of tyrannical anti-representation the nation's founders were responding to.

And of course Republicans are scheduling it for a time when they know turnout will be low. Even so, they're still afraid they won't win, so they're using deceptive language (there will be a court challenge about that point).

Per NBC: "Four former Ohio governors, including Republicans John Kasich and Bob Taft, and five former Ohio attorneys general, including Republicans Betty Montgomery and Jim Petro, have said they oppose the measure to raise the threshold."

Ironically, the Republican-controlled Ohio legislature earlier this year passed a law that banned elections in August under most circumstances, because, as Ohio's Republican Secretary of State said, "August special elections generate chronically low turnout because voters aren’t expecting an election to occur: this is bad news for the civic health of our state" -- of course, he changed his mind in this case.

For that reason, activists have filed a lawsuit against the proposed August election. But Republicans control the state supreme court, so I fear it will fail.

[N.E. Brigand]

Here in Ohio, there are efforts to get a measure on the ballot in November that if passed by voters would codify the right to an abortion in the state's constitution.

Ohio Republicans fear that such a measure would succeed, so they're trying to prevent it by undermining democracy. They're pushing to place a measure on the ballot in August by which Ohio's voters would be asked to raise the threshold needed to amend the state constitution at the ballot box from 50% of the vote (the current requirement) up to 60% of the vote. In short, a minority of the population would be in a position to impose their will on all Ohio women. The underhanded Republican measure would also require citizen-initiated ballot petitions to gather a certain percentage of signatures from all 88 Ohio counties (currently that's only needed from 44 counties) and would eliminate a 10-day period in which ballot signature deficiencies can be cured: any mistake would lead to an initiative being tossed.

The whole concept is just hideous. If you're going to ask voters to raise a threshold from 50% to 60%, then you ought to be required to get 60% in the first place -- or you ought to be able to repeal this change later by just 50% of the vote. To do otherwise is plainly undemocratic. I would say that it's so wrong that 40% of the population can control 60% of the population that extreme measures would be justified to change that. This is not like the Senate filibuster, which can in fact by removed by 50% of the members of the Senate, if they so choose. And it's not like the supermajority requirements in the U.S. Constitution, which were compromises measures needed to enact the Constitution in the first place. (The current 50% threshold for amending Ohio's constitution has been in place since 1912.) This is the kind of tyrannical anti-representation the nation's founders were responding to.

And of course Republicans are scheduling it for a time when they know turnout will be low. Even so, they're still afraid they won't win, so they're using deceptive language (there will be a court challenge about that point).

Per NBC: "Four former Ohio governors, including Republicans John Kasich and Bob Taft, and five former Ohio attorneys general, including Republicans Betty Montgomery and Jim Petro, have said they oppose the measure to raise the threshold."

Ironically, the Republican-controlled Ohio legislature earlier this year passed a law that banned elections in August under most circumstances, because, as Ohio's Republican Secretary of State said, "August special elections generate chronically low turnout because voters aren’t expecting an election to occur: this is bad news for the civic health of our state" -- of course, he changed his mind in this case.

For that reason, activists have filed a lawsuit against the proposed August election. But Republicans control the state supreme court, so I fear it will fail.

Our local ABC affiliate has video of Ohio's secretary of state, Frank LaRose, admitting to supporters last week that this bill is about abortion:

Some people say this is all about abortion. Well, you know what? It's 100% about keeping a radical pro-abortion amendment out of our constitution the left wants to jam it in there this coming November.

In all comments he's made to the media over the past year, he's claimed otherwise.

And of course, by "jam it in there," LaRose is referring to a majority of the state's voters approving an amendment. Here's how that would work: if a majority of the state's voters approve the codification of Roe in Ohio's constitution in November but later the opinion of Ohio voters on this subject changes, a new measure could be put on the ballot and a majority voters could choose to remove that language.

But what LaRose wants is for 50% of voters to pass an amendment now that would forever make it impossible for 50% of the voters to undo that.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm going to put this here, though it could also go in the "Challenges Ahead" thread.

[N.E. Brigand]

A new NBC poll finds that opposition to the Dobbs decision has gone up a bit in the year since it was announced:

"Do you approve or disapprove of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade?"

August 2022
38% -- approve
58% -- disapprove

June 2023
36% -- approve
61% -- disapprove

[N.E. Brigand]

Some citizens in Missouri wish to put a measure on the ballot that, if passed by voters, would amend Missouri's constitution to protect a woman's right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Accordingly they submitted proposed language for such a ballot in March. The next steps normally would be:

(1) State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick provides an estimate of what the measure would cost the state if passed;
(2) Attorney General Andrew Bailey reviews the proposals to make sure the language is legally permissible;
(3) Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft give the measure a title; and
(4) petitioners seek enough signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

And then if there are enough valid signatures submitted, it goes the to the voters in the next election.

In this case, Fitzpatrick the auditor -- who opposes abortion rights, mind you -- said that the cost to the state would be neglible.

But then Bailey the A.G. refused to take the next step, arguing that the state auditor is wrong and that allowing Missouri women access to abortion would cost as much as $6.9 trillion. That's more than the U.S. federal budget. Just for women's freedom of choice in one state. Which, by the way, they had until last year.

A judge ruled last week that Bailey can't do that, so he's appealed to the state's supreme court.

Oh and this entire process is supposed to take not more than 56 days, which, I believe, means this should have been settled by May.

Here's a report in the Missouri Indpendent about all this.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Kyle Griffin writes:
"Ohioans will almost certainly vote in November on a constitutional amendment to protect abortion access, after advocates today filed nearly twice the number of required signatures to get it on the ballot.

As of now, it'll be the biggest abortion vote of the year in the U.S."

[N.E. Brigand]

Kyle Griffin writes:
"Ohioans will almost certainly vote in November on a constitutional amendment to protect abortion access, after advocates today filed nearly twice the number of required signatures to get it on the ballot.

As of now, it'll be the biggest abortion vote of the year in the U.S."

But before that, in early August, Ohioans will vote on whether passing a constitutional amendment requires 50% of the vote -- as is currently the case -- or 60% of the vote. A recent poll found approval for abortion rights in Ohio is 59%, so if the August ballot passes, the November ballot probably won't.