1763

One of the bits that really stuck with me from the book Costly Grace, by former super pro-life activist Rob Schenck(the book is largely about how he got pulled into that world and then realized how far off the deep end he had gone), was how at the height of his activism he traveled around with an aborted fetus. I don’t remember how he got it or how that all worked, but I think he goes into a fair bit of detail about how at the time he justified illegally acquiring it and then using it as a prop.

1764

Out of curiosity, does this involve/extend to the use of cadavers for medical research, or even autopsies?

1765

Those uses are specifically called out in the catechism as allowed and, often, meritorious. The bodies must be acquired with consent, treated with respect, and properly buried afterwards.

So it’s the context of a graphic display for rhetorical purposes that makes Pavone’s video an affront to the dignity of the human body.

1766

There’s probably rules and details, because the Church also allows this:

1767

That the place in Prague? If it is, I’ve been there. Was…odd. Didn’t dampen my spirits for too long, because I went on a tour of the place where Pilsner was supposedly invented shortly afterwards, but I do recall thinking

wtf were these guys thinking to make a building out of skulls.

Makes sense.

1768

Nope, 3 places in Portugal.

1769

This is surprising.

I guess South Carolina needs to get them some of those new Federalist Society judges for their Supreme Court.

1770

Or they shortcut with US Supreme Court saying that the Independent Legislature Theory. applies to everything, not just elections.

1771

" For years, politicians and major anti-abortion groups have dismissed feminist warnings about women being prosecuted as ‘myths’ and misinformation. And since Roe was overturned, those same people have pointed to abortion bans themselves as ‘proof’—noting how many contain clauses stating that women are not to be arrested.

[…]

The state’s chemical endangerment law was crafted to punish adults who expose children to ‘an environment in which controlled substances are produced or distributed.’ In other words, Alabama’s Attorney General plans to arrest and charge women who take abortion medication—which accounts for over 50% of abortions, and is the primary way women in anti-choice states circumvent abortion bans. And they’re going to do so using a law meant to stop adults from bringing kids to drug dealers’ houses."

1773

You will be shocked, shocked I say, to learn that Nobody Did It:

1774

Either that, or we’re no longer considering Clarence to be a “person.”

1775

This court is regressive enough they likely view him as three-fifths of one.

1776

Holy shit.

1777

Americans United for Life and Democrats for Life of America have released a plan for Congress to make giving birth free for all Americans:

Basically, they’re advocating for Congress to make prenatal and birth-related care treated like preventative care under the ACA. And Medicare to cover postpartum care the way it was expanded (under Nixon, apparently) to completely cover dialysis and kidney transplants for all patients, even if they’re not Medicare recipients. Finally, they advocate for a Social Security-style payment to new mothers for two years.

Just a white paper, but it’s at least an example of breaking the standard political fault lines on the issue.

1778

Does it address miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, and the countless other cases where medical intervention with “abortion” drugs and/or methods are vital to saving the life/health of the mother?

1779

No, why should it?

1780

Because otherwise, once a woman starts to have a miscarriage, she’s no longer covered, and will be left to die of infection.

1781

Huh? I’m deeply confused here. Nothing in that paper suggested that women should be left to die, it just suggested financial aid for prenatal care and to new mothers. What am I missing?

Is it because Nightgaunt inexplicably put this in the abortion thread? There are certainly some potshots against abortion in the paper, and some puzzling potshots at C-sections as well, but from a policy perspective I find nothing objectionable about providing state-funded medical care to mothers.

1782

I would think that making prenatal care free… Would be good?

1783

The policy in question is a direct response to the Dobbs decision, nominally aimed at making the current law livable for women. However, without addressing the miscarriage and non-viable pregnancy issue, it’s incomplete to the point of near irrelevance in that capacity.

Self-evidently, but it doesn’t make the current legal environment for pregnant women any less life-threatening.