That's not what he's saying, nor his legal argument. We've already been over this dude. He is not buying his daughters birth control. That doesn't mean they still can't get it. He wants the federal government to not support organizations that do not require parental consent to hand out birth control.
Yes, we have. He isn't using birth control and neither are his daughters. There was no need for him to bring the case, but that specific judge, Kacsmaryk, is noted for his ideological leanings. It's judge shopping, simply put, and he just used the 1875 Comstock law to ban the mailing of the abortion pills. The Fifth Circuit court agreed.
A pregnancy failing on its own is called a miscarriage or a stillbirth, depending on how far along the pregnancy is.
That's not "aiding a natural death" anymore than me feeding someone cyanide is "aiding a natural death".
That is still called a spontaneous abortion. And yes, mifepristone is
used for incomplete miscarriages. It can
also be used for Cushing's disease. These things happen and there are a multitude of drugs used to aid a miscarriage when it does not solve on its from. Mifepristone, from a medical standpoint, isn't just used for abortion. However, given that it is part of the two-step drug regimen for medication abortion, it was chosen by the ADF and the Alliance of Hippocratic Medicine (incorporated only a few months ago in Texas) for its 'unsafe' profile - even when they brought no actual sufferers of the drug in said trial. Even the oxycodone trials had far more victims, and the FDA still refused to take them off the market (as did the courts).
"Conservative" politicians *have* to create a situation where their voters fear the pro-choice menace. So they have to get the pro-choice menance spooked good and hard with crazy stuff. Then the pro-choicers push for infanticide, and they can say to their voters "vote for me or the babykillers get in -" babykillers whom they have ensured will be engaging in constant public freakouts because the politicians of both sides have nothing to gain from compromise.
The Ohio case blew up because, initially, conservatives thought it was a hoax. Statements were made that Ohio law
does allow for abortion in that context, but under the then-enacted heartbeat law, it was not. (
Archive of a relevant article.) Before the details emerged that the rapist was an illegal immigrant and that the mother knew what was going on, this statement was made by a pregnancy care center:
An incident report filed April 29 by the local police department reflects an interview with an employee of a "pregnancy care center," who appeared to place some of the responsibility on the 11-year old rape victim. She is "rebellious," the employee said, according to the police report, and "refuses to listen to her mother and runs away from home all the time." A separate incident report does not adequately redact the victim's name nor her home address, even though the victim is a minor.
That's a fucked up thing to say, especially for an 11-year-old girl. It isn't a winning issue, either.
Re: ectopic pregnancies really are dangerous, and exceptions for them were made in light of severe pushback from doctors. I'm sure you remember the
Ohio case of their legislature wanting ectopic pregnancies to be re-implanted? Thankfully that went nowhere, and exceptions are made for that in their current laws. But it was a weird thing to see proposed.
I am willing to tolerate abortions up to 12 weeks. Most people too agree that 3 months if a good limit. Hell most of Europe has it. 8 weeks is a limit around the heartbeat detection that is a bit short but shouldn't be a issue at all if a woman is in any way responsible. If not that isn't my problem and you should have closed your legs.
Sounds like some more cope to me. All of this comes off as fear mongering over having to take care of your own body and take responsibility.
Europe has more maternity care laws, and easier access to clinics, so more abortions can be done within that time frame. The United States doesn't really have maternity care laws or leave, and in certain states like Texas, lower income families often have their Medicaid yanked after six months. (To add, the US never actually ratified the Rights of the Child UN treaty, and is the only nation aside from North Korea to do so.) Were the healthcare system updated from the top down, you might see this achievable. But that's for optional abortions; fetal anomalies often occur around 18 weeks, so there should be exceptions for that.
Ask yourself why it took 50 years for Roe v. Wade to be enacted into federal law. All of this could've been avoided if the government actually did right for its citizens instead of dangling the keys for years. Hell, an agreement was being finalized to recognize abortion for 12 weeks federally I believe. Democrats said no, so now Republicans have gotten a win out of pure spite.
ProPublica did have a good article on this, noting that under Obama, abortion protections could have been codified under a Democrat supermajority. Obama even promised it on the campaign trail. Naturally he dropped it.
In terms of state-driven abortion referendums, certain states are making it harder for it to be put on the ballot, which might be the case in Florida in other states. We'll see how that goes with the Comstock Act being revived for the mifepristone ruling.
