Scientific American: The U.S. Supreme Court is about to make a huge mistake.

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Abortion Rights Are Good Health and Good Science​

The leaked Supreme Court draft opinion goes against science, safety and human dignity, and portends a dangerous post-Roe future

The U.S. Supreme Court is about to make a huge mistake.

If the leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is a true indication of the Court’s will, federal abortion rights in this country are about to be struck down. In doing so the Court will not only side against popular opinion on a crucial issue of bodily autonomy, but also signal that politics and religion play a more important role in health care than do science and evidence.

more here

Abortion Rights Are Good Health Care and Good Science

Restricting access to abortion goes against science, safety, and human dignity and portends a dangerous future

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Rifler]

In doing so the Court will not only side against popular opinion on a crucial issue of bodily autonomy, but also signal that politics and religion play a more important role in health care than do science and evidence.

Neither popular opinion nor politics/religion vs science/evidence are the concern of the US Supreme Court,.. They have one task, and that task is to determine the constitutionality of Roe v Wade...

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

[more from article]

In passing these laws, anti-abortion legislators often claim that abortion harms people who are pregnant. In a landmark study from the University of California, San Francisco, scientists found the opposite: denying people abortions led to worse mental and physical health, as well as financial stability. The Turnaway Study looked at about 1,000 women who were seeking abortions, and followed them for five years. Some were just early enough in their pregnancies that they got the procedure, and others were turned away because their pregnancies were slightly past the legal cutoff where they lived. Women who had abortions reported fewer mental health issues, even years later, and their most common reaction was relief. Women denied abortions often experienced brief declines in mental health and higher anxiety.

Women denied abortions were more likely to end up poor, unemployed or receiving government assistance, even though before they asked for an abortion they were in a similar financial place as women who were able to get one. This study, and others, tell us what will happen in a post-Roe world, when people are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term because they are denied a most basic form of health care and the ability to make decisions about their own bodies. Access to abortion largely appears to have very positive effects on people’s lives.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Neither popular opinion nor politics/religion vs science/evidence are the concern of the US Supreme Court,.. They have one task, and that task is to determine the constitutionality of Roe v Wade...

These justices don't seem to think that the Preamble, the General Welfare Clause, the 9th amendment, and the several places dealing with privacy are actually parts of the constitution.

So they should have no trouble taking away this right.

 

[BioHawk]

I wonder how many people will be happy to see HIPAA laws thrown out once this court determines that a Right to Privacy does not exist.

 

[Rifler]

I wonder how many people will be happy to see HIPAA laws thrown out once this court determines that a Right to Privacy does not exist.

Zero,.. because that won't happen.

 

[Warrior Poet31]

The SC isn't doing away with bodily autonomy. They're affirming the bodily autonomy of the unborn baby.

 

[Rifler]

The SC isn't doing away with bodily autonomy. They're affirming the bodily autonomy of the unborn baby.

Actually no, they aren't doing that either...

 

[BioHawk]

Zero,.. because that won't happen.

Sure it won't. Just like 4 current justices said that Roe v. Wade was settled law.

All it will take is an insurance company wanting to get access to health records or for a hospital to want the ability to sell your medical information for profit to file a lawsuit. With no right to privacy, what chance does the law have?

 

[Tom Paris]

Zero,.. because that won't happen.

lol

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Neither popular opinion nor politics/religion vs science/evidence are the concern of the US Supreme Court,.. They have one task, and that task is to determine the constitutionality of Roe v Wade...

Nah they just decided that they needed to review the work of those that came before them, they were by no means forced to make any ruling on Roe...as all of the conservative Justices have said in public.

 

[Titanhawk2]

Abortion Rights Are Good Health and Good Science​

The leaked Supreme Court draft opinion goes against science, safety and human dignity, and portends a dangerous post-Roe future

The U.S. Supreme Court is about to make a huge mistake.

If the leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is a true indication of the Court’s will, federal abortion rights in this country are about to be struck down. In doing so the Court will not only side against popular opinion on a crucial issue of bodily autonomy, but also signal that politics and religion play a more important role in health care than do science and evidence.

more here

Abortion Rights Are Good Health Care and Good Science

Restricting access to abortion goes against science, safety, and human dignity and portends a dangerous future

www.scientificamerican.com

Alright, another "follow the science moment"!!

 

[pablow]

I wonder how many people will be happy to see HIPAA laws thrown out once this court determines that a Right to Privacy does not exist.

Sure it won't. Just like 4 current justices said that Roe v. Wade was settled law.

All it will take is an insurance company wanting to get access to health records or for a hospital to want the ability to sell your medical information for profit to file a lawsuit. With no right to privacy, what chance does the law have?

HIPAA is a federal law and is not dependent on a constitutional right to privacy. If Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, it will have zero effect on the medical record privacy rights created by Congress.

 

[Finance85]

Why are so many people missing the point? The SCOTUS isn't making abortion illegal. The only think about this case involving science is there's a second life involved. The SCOTUS isn't even saying when that second life should be recognized.

If Democrats want to codify abortion nationally, they have a majority in both houses and have the White House. Nothing is stopping them. Democrats also have full control in 7 states if they want to enact new laws. Heck, abortion is constitutionally protected in Iowa.

The noise about SCOTUS is really tiresome.

 

[RileyHawk]

The SC isn't doing away with bodily autonomy. They're affirming the bodily autonomy of the unborn baby.

An unborn baby has no bodily autonomy - they are completely dependent on their mother as a host.

Even if you buy the nonsense about an embryo being a human, how do those against abortion rights justify the rights of the fetus requiring the mother to put her life at risk?

 

[Colonoscopy]

Abortion Rights Are Good Health and Good Science​

The leaked Supreme Court draft opinion goes against science, safety and human dignity, and portends a dangerous post-Roe future

The U.S. Supreme Court is about to make a huge mistake.

If the leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is a true indication of the Court’s will, federal abortion rights in this country are about to be struck down. In doing so the Court will not only side against popular opinion on a crucial issue of bodily autonomy, but also signal that politics and religion play a more important role in health care than do science and evidence.

more here

Abortion Rights Are Good Health Care and Good Science

Restricting access to abortion goes against science, safety, and human dignity and portends a dangerous future

www.scientificamerican.com

American Scientific needs to shutup and stick to science. And I'm serious about that.

 

[BioHawk]

HIPAA is a federal law and is not dependent on a constitutional right to privacy. If Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, it will have zero effect on the medical record privacy rights created by Congress.

Until someone files a lawsuit to get it thrown out as unconstitutional. If there is no longer a right to privacy then someone could argue they have a right to know. I'm not saying it's a good case or that it makes sense, but very little the Supreme Court has done over the last 15 years has made any sense and it's been a long time since they have been using the rule of law or any sort of established precedent to base decisions on for many cases. This court has shown time and time again that they will side with corporations and businesses in almost every case.

You know what else is coming? Union protections are going to be torn apart. A national "right to work for less" law to smash unions. I bet that happens within the decade.

 

[DrVenkman]

Honestly, doesnt SCOTUS have other issues to deal with? Why is this of such importance to this court.

It seems totally politically motivated and actually does not solve for anything. Dont all states already have their own laws about late term abortions, viability etc. ?

 

[sober_teacher]

HIPAA is a federal law and is not dependent on a constitutional right to privacy. If Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, it will have zero effect on the medical record privacy rights created by Congress.

All federal laws are based somehow in the constitution. If you accept the idea that the constitution doesn’t include a right to privacy, it’s not a huge stretch to say that any law based on privacy rights becomes vulnerable.

 

[pablow]

All federal laws are based somehow in the constitution. If you accept the idea that the constitution doesn’t include a right to privacy, it’s not a huge stretch to say that any law based on privacy rights becomes vulnerable.

No - that's not how it works. Federal, state, and local governments are free to grant its citizens more many more rights than those guaranteed by the federal constitution.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Sure it won't. Just like 4 current justices said that Roe v. Wade was settled law.

All it will take is an insurance company wanting to get access to health records or for a hospital to want the ability to sell your medical information for profit to file a lawsuit. With no right to privacy, what chance does the law have?

Yep, corporate and religious rights are paramount to the GOP and this Court.

Alito would doubtless point out that there is no strong pre-constitutional common law saying insurance companies - or anyone else - can't see your medical records.

Alexa tells me the first insurance company was formed in 1699 in London. FWIW.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

American Scientific needs to shutup and stick to science. And I'm serious about that.

I'm guessing you didn't read the whole article. Probably not the second excerpt, even.

Because they pretty much stick to the science.

 

[BioHawk]

Yep, corporate and religious rights are paramount to the GOP and this Court.

Alito would doubtless point out that there is no strong pre-constitutional common law saying insurance companies - or anyone else - can't see your medical records.

Alexa tells me the first insurance company was formed in 1699 in London. FWIW.

I'm sure there is some ancient Babylonian code of law Alito can refer to for whatever reasoning he comes up with.

 

[sober_teacher]

No - that's not how it works. Federal, state, and local governments are free to grant its citizens more many more rights than those guaranteed by the federal constitution.

State and local laws are based on state constitutions not federal. You’re right they’re free to grant more than things explicitly guaranteed by the US Constitution…but they have to be justified somehow - otherwise they get struck down as “unconstitutional “ by the courts.

For example, they used the Commerce clause to justify Social Security back in the 30s.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The SCOTUS isn't making abortion illegal.

Your honor, I didn't rape her. I just unlocked her door and invited the rapist in.

 

[ItsinourDNA]

Why are so many people missing the point? The SCOTUS isn't making abortion illegal. The only think about this case involving science is there's a second life involved. The SCOTUS isn't even saying when that second life should be recognized.

If Democrats want to codify abortion nationally, they have a majority in both houses and have the White House. The filibuster is stopping them. Democrats also have full control in 7 states if they want to enact new laws. Heck, abortion is constitutionally protected in Iowa.

The noise about SCOTUS is really tiresome.

fify

 

[Jimmy McGill]

Do anti-abortion rights believe in the right to life for all animals / mammals? Do you have any problem of castrating / neutering without their choice?

 

[DooBii]

Your honor, I didn't rape her. I just unlocked her door and invited the rapist in.

Are you just a rightie troll that says stupid stuff to make the left look bad? If so, you do a really good job.

 

[kwik44]

Neither popular opinion nor politics/religion vs science/evidence are the concern of the US Supreme Court,.. They have one task, and that task is to determine the constitutionality of Roe v Wade...

Yeah, but feelings & emotions.

 

[Joes Place]

Abortion Rights Are Good Health and Good Science​

The leaked Supreme Court draft opinion goes against science, safety and human dignity, and portends a dangerous post-Roe future

The U.S. Supreme Court is about to make a huge mistake.

If the leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is a true indication of the Court’s will, federal abortion rights in this country are about to be struck down. In doing so the Court will not only side against popular opinion on a crucial issue of bodily autonomy, but also signal that politics and religion play a more important role in health care than do science and evidence.

more here

Abortion Rights Are Good Health Care and Good Science

Restricting access to abortion goes against science, safety, and human dignity and portends a dangerous future

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[tarheelbybirth]

No - that's not how it works. Federal, state, and local governments are free to grant its citizens more many more rights than those guaranteed by the federal constitution.

Corporations are persons...remember? SCOTUS says so. And they can argue their rights to information supersede those of us regular old people.

 

[Aardvark86]

Abortion Rights Are Good Health and Good Science​

The leaked Supreme Court draft opinion goes against science, safety and human dignity, and portends a dangerous post-Roe future

The U.S. Supreme Court is about to make a huge mistake.

If the leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is a true indication of the Court’s will, federal abortion rights in this country are about to be struck down. In doing so the Court will not only side against popular opinion on a crucial issue of bodily autonomy, but also signal that politics and religion play a more important role in health care than do science and evidence.

more here

Abortion Rights Are Good Health Care and Good Science

Restricting access to abortion goes against science, safety, and human dignity and portends a dangerous future

www.scientificamerican.com

I always like it when scientists get out of their lane, whether it be into cosmology, law, or anything else.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I always like it when scientists get out of their lane, whether it be into cosmology, law, or anything else.

Something that could only be said by someone who didn't read the article.

And really, cosmology? Scientist shouldn't talk about the nature and origin of the universe? Give me a break.

 

[Joes Place]

We should really be going with what the Founders of our Constitution intended...

Benjamin Franklin gave instructions on at-home abortions in a book in the 1700s​

...
But as Farrell describes, the most significant change in the book was swapping out a section that included a medical textbook from London with a Virginia medical handbook from 1734 called Every Man His Own Doctor: The Poor Planter's Physician.

This medical handbook provided home remedies for a variety of ailments, allowing people to handle their more minor illnesses at home, like a fever or gout. One entry, however, was "for the suppression of the courses", which Farrell discovered meant a missed menstrual period.

"[The book] starts to prescribe basically all of the best-known herbal abortifacients and contraceptives that were circulating at the time," Farrell said. "It's just sort of a greatest hits of what 18th-century herbalists would have given a woman who wanted to end a pregnancy early."

"It's very explicit, very detailed, [and] also very accurate for the time in terms of what was known ... for how to end a pregnancy pretty early on."

Including this information in a widely circulated guide for everyday life bears a significance to today's heated debate over access to abortion and contraception in the United States. In particular, the leaked Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade and states that "a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the nation's histories and traditions."

Farrell said the book was immensely popular, and she did not find any evidence of objections to the inclusion of the section.

"It didn't really bother anybody that a typical instructional manual could include material like this," she said. "It just wasn't something to be remarked upon. It was just a part of everyday life."

 

[joelbc1]

Neither popular opinion nor politics/religion vs science/evidence are the concern of the US Supreme Court,.. They have one task, and that task is to determine the constitutionality of Roe v Wade...

And that reminds us all of the old adage, “ you can’t legislate morality.” I thought America learned its lesson with prohibition. I know better than to “assume”...

 

[Urohawk]

I wonder how many people will be happy to see HIPAA laws thrown out once this court determines that a Right to Privacy does not exist.

I would love for that to happen. The HIPAA laws are a bane to the healthcare industry. As originally intended, they were great. The interpretation has gone bonkers. It was meant to protect your health information from being released to people like your employer, insurance companies, etc to keep your privacy and prevent discrimination.

What it got us was stupid things like having encrypted software for texting. Having encrypted pagers so no one could intercept the radio-waves of our messages.

 

[Joes Place]

I would love for that to happen. The HIPAA laws are a bane to the healthcare industry. As originally intended, they were great. The interpretation has gone bonkers. It was meant to protect your health information from being released to people like your employer, insurance companies, etc to keep your privacy and prevent discrimination.

What it got us was stupid things like having encrypted software for texting. Having encrypted pagers so no one could intercept the radio-waves of our messages.

You do realize that the ability to hack into those systems also enables hackers to destroy information, encrypt entire systems and run ransomware scams....right?

 

[BioHawk]

I would love for that to happen. The HIPAA laws are a bane to the healthcare industry. As originally intended, they were great. The interpretation has gone bonkers. It was meant to protect your health information from being released to people like your employer, insurance companies, etc to keep your privacy and prevent discrimination.

What it got us was stupid things like having encrypted software for texting. Having encrypted pagers so no one could intercept the radio-waves of our messages.

Yeah..... no thanks.

 

[Urohawk]

Yeah..... no thanks.

I don't mind the legal protections in general but they've interpreted it to be extreme is my point. How many people are hacking the radio frequencies used by pagers that they actually need to replace the pagers for 800 doctors at my hospital? Think of that wasted expense.

 

[Urohawk]

You do realize that the ability to hack into those systems also enables hackers to destroy information, encrypt entire systems and run ransomware scams....right?

Electronic medical records are fine. An example is that I can't use my cell phone to text another doctor, "Johnson in Room 12 is having nut pain. Can you order an ultrasound?" I have to buy special encrypted software with a subscription fee and put a program on my phone that allows the hospital to wipe it and monitor my private phone.