Abortion and Confronting Our Tolerance for A Visible Hand

Jennifer Worrel

Jennifer Worrel is a transplant from the Great Plains raising two sons and a husband in Metro Atlanta. Extremely likable until you get to know her, she remains a great invite to a dinner party. She prefers peeing in the woods to peeing on private planes and was once told by her husband that she is “way funnier online.” Writes about whatever interests her, she knows a little about a lot. For fun, she enjoys cooking from scratch and watching old Milton Friedman videos on YouTube. Jennifer's thoughts are her own and do not represent the views or position of any firm or affiliate she is lucky enough to associate with.

Related Post Roulette

203 Responses

  1. Greg In Ak says:

    That’s not what an externality is and free markets depend on regulation. Markets never exist without regs. So picky points aside i’m sure i won’t be the first to mention the egregious BSDI that stopped me in my tracks. D’s have been fighting abortion restrictions for decades AND trying to expend pre and post pregnancy support services. D’s are pushing for comprehensive medical care for moms and their kids. R’s are trying to stop women from crossing state lines among a dozen other authoritarian moves.

    The parties are very different. One is coming for your freedom, one isn’t.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Greg In Ak says:

      Greg, “BSDI” is not a refutation.

      Seriously.

      It’s not even a fallacy.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

        He was pointing out that he saw a LOT of BSDI in the OP, not using that as a refutation. Reading comprehension.Report

      • Greg In Ak in reply to Jaybird says:

        No it’s not a refutation. It is pointing what i think is a poor understanding of events which colors all the following analysis. If a piece starts of , imho, seeing things incorrectly how does it get to a good conclusion. BSDI is an incorrect premise. The parties are not the same and have significantly different behaviors and goals.

        That does not abortion right or wrong or anything. But if you value freedom then i damn well want to know who is taking it away and who is trying to expand it.

        You know what BSDI means. It’s been an internet term forever ( for really short versions of forever)
        I mean come we(I) aware of all internet traditions. Right????Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Greg In Ak says:

          I’m aware of our traditions *HERE*.

          And that’s one that gets used as a thought-terminating cliché.Report

          • Greg In Ak in reply to Jaybird says:

            Aww come on, dont’ you remember “I am aware of all internet traditions”….It was thing on the internet years ago…..sigh….kids these days.

            I do find BSDI to be serious thinking error that leads to bad conclusions. You can disagree. So can Jennifer. But it’s like i just thought of it myself or that it hasn’t been a common crit for years.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Greg In Ak says:

              I think that False Equivalency is, indeed, a logical fallacy.

              I also think that there are Equivalencies that are not false and yelling something about “you said ‘Both Sides'” in response to a legit criticism is a great way to avoid even thinking about the criticism.Report

              • Greg In Ak in reply to Jaybird says:

                Okay. I think BSDI is a solid crit and you dont’. I think its a false equivalency. One way to get past that is to make the crit you have w/o trying to make it equivalent to anything else. Judge it on it’s own first then compare. R’s proto travel ban crap is authoritarian bs that everybody should be loudly shouting down. How it compares or doesn’t to D’s isn’t relevant.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Greg In Ak says:

                I think that the travel ban is absolutely bad.

                I think it’s immoral but if “immoral” doesn’t move you, I also think it’s unconstitutional. If “unconstitutional” doesn’t move you, I also don’t think it’ll work.

                Like, it’s expressing a sentiment and then trying to pass a law to will a world where nobody would break the law into existence.

                And that will fail.Report

  2. Chip Daniels says:

    I wasn’t bothered by the BSDI so much as the smirking reference to “factions of people who sincerely believe that America is currently living out Atwood’s and Orwell’s prophecies.”

    We are only weeks into this era and already the horror stories are surfacing- the 10 year old girl forced to flee to another state because Republicans would have forced her to carry her rapists pregnancy to term,, a woman whose wanted pregnancy developed serious medical problems but her doctor refused to provide care for fear of a lawsuit.

    And only a few lines after the eye-rolling about Gilead, the author calmly discusses the efforts to block American citizens from domestic travel, as if this just a debatable topic upon which reasonable people can disagree.

    Yeah. Gilead is here. The hysterical little ladies were right.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      You can take the person out the Republican Party but you can’t make them admit that the Democratic Party is a normal and rational political party. That would require getting over decades of bias and being aligned with various those people groups.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      We are only weeks into this era and already the horror stories are surfacing- the 10 year old girl forced to flee to another state because Republicans would have forced her to carry her rapists pregnancy to term

      To say nothing of the Indiana State AG who both appears to have defamed the Doctor who performed the abortion AND is investigating her for . . . . something.Report

      • DavidTC in reply to Philip H says:

        Yup.

        It’s amazing, how they are _simultaneously_ saying ‘Everyone is lying, this girl could have gotten an abortion in Ohio! The laws allows it.'(1) while they are _also_ trying to figure out something to charge the doctor with.

        Republicans are signalling pretty damn strongly there that theywill, in fact, go after _any_ abortion provided, even ones that are the ban is such horrific optics for that they are at the same time saying ‘No, we didn’t ban that!’.

        Incidentally, they’re trying to mislead people with that claim. This girl could have gotten an abortion…eventually. Just not _that_ abortion. Not at that time.

        But eventually, it would have threatened to kill her, and when she became at the point of ‘immediate risk’ of her life, they could have done the abortion. Probably around the third trimester?

        So, yes, in some hypothetical universe where this girl waited months and started having serious health problems, she could have, indeed, gotten an abortion, if she hadn’t died while everyone was arguing what point it technically became an ‘immediate risk’…which, you know, happens all the time in places that have such laws.

        Ohio managed to fail at the basic test of allowing abortions of non-viable and always lethal fetuses, which means that both 10-year-olds and people with ectopic pregnancies have to wait until they are near death, despite giving birth successfully being unheard of for the first group and literally impossible for the second group.

        This is, honestly, amazing. Either Ohio lawmakers are fundamentally too stupid to pass laws, or the entire point of those laws is to harm and kill women.

        Or both, I guess.Report

  3. Saul Degraw says:

    “My policy is not to conduct interviews with reporters who aren’t Christian or with outlets who aren’t Christian and Doug has a very similar media strategy where he does not do interviews with these people. He does not talk to these people. He does not give press access to these people,” Torba said. “These people are dishonest. They’re liars. They’re a den of vipers and they want to destroy you. My typical conversation with them when they email me is ‘repent and accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior.’ I take it as an opportunity to try and convert them.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/28/gop-pa-governor-nominee-under-fire-ties-with-white-nationalist-site/Report

  4. Saul Degraw says:

    Restricting domestic travel is unconstitutional. There is a whole clause in the Constitution about it called the privileges and immunities clause. We are not a country of internal passports.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Many of these laws aren’t being pitched as travel restrictions per se – meaning they aren’t seeking to keep people from crossing state lines. Rather they are seeking to penalize people’s ACTIONS when they cross state lines. That strikes me as far more pernicious, and far more likely under this Court to stand.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Philip H says:

        It is more pernicious because it extends a the jurisdiction of a state beyond its borders.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

        You’d think that “there should be limits to jurisdiction” would be something that we, as a country, would be willing to agree upon.

        Personally, I see it as a winning argument. Let Massachusetts be Massachusetts, let Texas be Texas, let California be California.

        “Federalism For Real This Time”, we could call it.Report

        • DavidTC in reply to Jaybird says:

          You’d think that “there should be limits to jurisdiction” would be something that we, as a country, would be willing to agree upon.

          We had a civil war over pretty much that.

          Slave states, worried about escaped slaves, tried to extend jurisdiction into non-slave states, and managing to get Federal laws passed to basically allow that, to let them recover escaped slaves under Federal law.

          The non-slave states refused to play along, so the slave states kept trying to ramp up the pressure, making laws that _required_ civilians in other states to help in the capture of escape slaves.

          Northern states starting using Federal jury nullification (Remember, Federal juries are…still juries of peers. And constitutionally must be from the same state, so there’s literally nothing anyone could do.) and passed laws forbidding their citizens from helping and forbidding alleged escaped slaves from being held in state jails. Basically, there were Federal laws, but no one could enforce the damn things.

          Southern states, unable to actually force the Northern states to go along with things, eventually decided to leave. Like, it wasn’t some hypothetical ‘They might outlaw slavery’, as the history books vaguely handwave, it was literally the fact that the _rest_ of the country was letting slaves escape to it.

          The Civil War: Literally about states’ rights. Specifically, the right of Massachusetts and other states to ignore Federal laws requiring them to participate in human trafficking. Doh!

          So we have actually had this war before…almost along the same lines. And various states, often the exact same states, are again going to find it _exceptionally_ difficult to get other states to enforce laws they don’t agree with. (Of course, that isn’t always a positive.)Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to DavidTC says:

            , it wasn’t some hypothetical ‘They might outlaw slavery’, as the history books vaguely handwave

            Lincoln was the head of a party created to get rid of slavery and candidate Lincoln got his party’s nod saying he was going to get rid of slavery.

            Given what we know now, confusing candidate Lincoln with President Lincoln may have been an error. To preserve the union, President Lincoln was way more willing to compromise than Candidate Lincoln. For example he was willing to outlaw slavery for future slaves (so everyone is born free) and let the current ones die as such to minimize economic disruption.

            However it seems a reach to think at the time the South should have known that Lincoln wasn’t serious about ending slavery.Report

            • CJColucci in reply to Dark Matter says:

              The Republican platform was not abolition, but non-extension. Lincoln disclaimed the inclination or power to interfere with slavery where it then existed (except in D.C.), but believed that non-extension would eventually lead to the death of slavery, either through natural processes or the admission of sufficient new free states to pass a constitutional amendment.
              The South either didn’t believe that Lincoln meant what he said, and would do things he said he would not, or believed that he did mean what he said and shared his analysis. Or they didn’t care. Losing the political whip hand was reason enough.Report

            • DavidTC in reply to Dark Matter says:

              Lincoln promised not to disturb slavery in the south, as CJColucci pointed out.

              And he didn’t have anywhere near the votes to get rid of slavery anyway, on top of the fact everyone agreed it would take a constitutional amendment anyway.

              The idea that there was one _election_ that was going to decide this issue is nonsense. There is absolutely no chance that anything Lincoln was going to do was going to end slavery during his term. He had no way to do that. (Well, until he was handed one by a bunch of states leaving.)

              The problem the slave states had was not only had the free states turned against them, letting slaves escape to them, but Lincoln had also repeatedly worked to stop new and territory states from becoming slave states, so all the new states would be against them too.

              And, _eventually_, they would not be able to hold only to slavery. Eventually, there would be enough for a constitutional amendment against them.Report

  5. Fish says:

    The bit I just cannot wrap my head around is how any lawmaker in any state thinks they can get away with negating a person’s right to cross a state line. I figure they know the laws won’t stand up to scrutiny, but until they struck down they’ll act as an effective deterrent to plenty of folks.

    And also hello from a fellow Kansas refugee! My joke is, “Kansas is a nice place to be from.”Report

  6. Pinky says:

    I have yet to hear someone who can describe the Court’s thinking in a reasonable way explain how they think an interstate travel ban could be accepted by the Court as constitutional.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Pinky says:

      Let’s say that X is legal in Michigan.
      Let’s say that X is illegal in Ohio.

      Can Ohio arrest you for Xing in Michigan yesterday?

      If you’re in Ohio today, say.

      Seems to me that they can’t but I am not a historian who can explain that we have decades of legal precedence going back to FDR that explains that, yes, Ohio has jurisdiction over X when X is one of the following 4 categories of act…Report

      • Pinky in reply to Jaybird says:

        That’s a rundown of why an interstate travel ban would be considered unreasonable. I’m interested in the opposite and slightly different question of why would it be considered constitutional.

        Also, if there is any BSDI argument, it’d be that the liberals rightly opposing an interstate travel ban today spent the last two years believing that any level of government can restrict any kind of travel in the name of health.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

          A temporary restriction on travel to address a pandemic is not the same as a permanent imposition of prosecution for actions taken in another state. Not in any way shape or form.Report

          • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

            If protests against racism are seen as matters of health worthy of cancelling out restrictions on gathering, and the left is willing to depict gun laws as matters of health, then it’s zero intellectual stretch to apply the same thinking to protecting the unborn. Practically I can’t see it happen, but intellectually it’s just another weapon that the left came up with that they arrogantly think can only be used against opponents.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

              “Killing cows is pretty much like killing fetuses, if you stop to think about it.
              So banning one is just like banning another.”

              This episode of Stupid Comparisons is a public service announcement.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

              The restrictions on gathering were never cancelled for those protests. People were told what was believed to be the likely outcome, and gathered anyway.

              Which is again hugely different from criminalizing abortion and hen asserting your state can punish its citizens for crossing stateline to seek one in a place where its legal.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Philip H says:

                A much misunderstood or forgotten point. Mass arrests of maskless protestors for not wearing masks were a non-starter for obvious practical reasons. Still, lots of people had good, clean fun pointing to the maskless protestors and accusing them of killing grandma. Even here, where we’re usually above that sort of thing.Report

      • PD Shaw in reply to Jaybird says:

        Kyle Rittenhouse traveled from Illinois to Wisconsin where he killed some people before returning to Illinois. I never heard anyone suggest he could be tried in Illinois unless he acquired the guns in Illinois illegally and that would be for gun charges not killings.

        Kavanaugh is the swing justice in Dobbs and he wrote in his concurrence: “For example, may a
        State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.”Report

        • Philip H in reply to PD Shaw says:

          Its a very interesting analogy because no state is (as yet) suggesting barring travel, merely prosecution for activity across state lines. So using your point, some red states are suggesting they would want Illinois to be able to prosecute Rittenhouse for the killings in Wisconsin.Report

          • PD Shaw in reply to Philip H says:

            The right to interstate travel isn’t just about physically blocking people at the borders, it precludes other infringements on free movement like taxing railroad passengers leaving a state.

            Under the Commerce Clause, there are similar restrictions preventing states from applying its laws to commerce taking place wholly outside of the State’s borders.

            The third issue is the state sovereignty is territorial, it does not generally have the power (jurisdiction) to prosecute activities in another state’s boundaries.

            I don’t know what some people are suggesting, but it looks to me like there are a lot of Constitutional limitations weighing against it being successful, none of which are based upon Roe v. Wade. Two points of vulnerability might be abortion transportation services and billboard advertising, because they take place at least partly in-state, but I would hazard to guess how the current Supreme Court would rule on issues involving commerce and free speech.Report

            • InMD in reply to PD Shaw says:

              The future of abortion promises to be strangely similar to the experience of going to the fireworks store, just passed the state line.Report

              • PD Shaw in reply to InMD says:

                Hadn’t that happened already? I mean Missouri had one clinic that’s now closed, but if you can get to its St. Louis location, you can hop on a train or bus to East St. Louis, IL.

                What comes to my mind is Stephen Douglas’ Freeport Doctrine: whatever the SCOTUS might say on the matter of slavery, if people in a given locality “are opposed to slavery they will elect representatives to that body who will by unfriendly legislation effectually prevent the introduction of it into their midst.” There has been thirty years of unfriendly legislation, plus new medication alternatives.Report

      • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird says:

        Can Ohio arrest you for Xing in Michigan yesterday?

        Basic civics suggests the answer is “no” and it’s impossible to get this to work mechanically.

        For example, smoking pot is illegal in lots of states, State cops have their power end at the state boarder.

        This issue is why there’s such interest (on both sides) of resolving this at a federal level.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Dark Matter says:

          Okay. I thought about smoking pot and came up with a weird counterfactual.

          Let’s say you went to Michigan and smoked pot two whole weeks ago. Now you’re back home and you’re applying for a job. They put a drug test in front of you and ask you to pee in the cup. Right there! In the office! WHILE PEOPLE ARE STARING AT YOU!

          No, not really. But they do say “yeah, we need you to go to Oak Central Testing down on South Main and take the drug test and then we’ll finish up your paperwork.”

          Is popping hot for Marijuana a legit reason to deny employment?

          I know that it is for the Feds. (I actually attempted journalism back in 2014 and the Military Contractor I talked to informed me that they work according to Federal Law and not state law and any Military Contractor I talked to would tell me the same and I doubt that that has changed in the last 8 years.)

          Now, being denied a job is significantly different from being arrested…

          But I have no doubt that a corporation can decline to hire you for popping hot even if you went to Michigan first.Report

          • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

            Now, being denied a job is significantly different from being arrested…

            Pretty sure we all agree on this.

            Which makes me wonder why you are even bringing this up . . . .Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

              It has to do with the relationship of the individual to outside forces.

              What is the extent of your employer’s power over you? Can your employer prevent you from going to Michigan and smoking pot over a two-week vacation?

              Oh, they can? That’s odd.

              It seems to me that it’s none of my corporation’s business what I do during my two-week vacation so long as I come back to work on the first Monday back clean and sober.

              If we agree that there are limits to The Government’s jurisdiction over your life but there are fewer limits to Your Corporation’s jurisdiction over your life, I’m finding myself taken aback at the weird cyberpunk future I am now not only living in but watching lefties defend.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

                Why do you think lefties defend the jurisdiction of corporations?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

                Eh, the ownership class has probably figured out that through weaponization of identity issues, they can best protect their own interests.

                Preoccupation with identity issues is now de facto lefty.

                It’s probably not more complicated than that.Report

              • Chris in reply to Jaybird says:

                [Reads about another mainstream politician referring to herself as a Christian Nationalist.] Ah yeah, identity politics is a strictly “lefty” thing (where lefty apparently = liberal).

                If you didn’t see the recent hubbub on the Twitters about Lockheed, I recommend checking it out. It will give a pretty clear idea of the dividing line between left and liberal, particularly on “identity” issues in the context of corporations.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chris says:

                I talked about the hubbub here!

                You’ll be comforted to know that the right wing excels at is nutpicking the platonic ideal of a strident, puritanical leftie on twitter/internet and making it seem like said random person has a direct line to Biden, Harris, Pelosi, and Schumer.Report

              • Chris in reply to Jaybird says:

                The dynamic I’m referring to is another aspect of that hubbub. The person in question is disabled and a transgender person, so a divide arose between those who were like, “You know, building the machinery of war is bad” (a pretty universal lefty position held deontologically), and those who were like, “Why are you criticizing and employer who employs disabled LGBT people?! Apparently a weapons manufacturer is more progressive than a lot of lefties!”Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chris says:

                The fun part of the debate got between the “just following orders” part of twitter and the ableist people who don’t need health care, apparently.

                Report

              • Chris in reply to Philip H says:

                I know that when I’m hanging out with leftists, they’re always defending employers of all sorts, but especially big corporations. Just a big part of the basic philosophy that unites all breeds of leftism, a love for employers and especially corporations (the bigger and more profitable the better, especially if the C-suite folks get giant raises and no one else does).Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird says:

            Is popping hot for Marijuana a legit reason to deny employment?

            In an “at will” state?
            Yes.
            They can fire me for any reason or no reason at all.
            I can quit for any reason or no reason at all.

            That’s over and above them not wanting to deal with high employees.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

      Once again, these are not “travel bans” in that they are not preventing someone in Missouri from going to or returning from Illinois. They are proposals to apply criminalization of an activity in Missouri to actions conducted by Missourians in Illinois where that illegal-in-Missouri thing is legal.Report

      • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

        They are proposals to apply criminalization of an activity in Missouri to actions conducted by Missourians in Illinois where that illegal-in-Missouri thing is legal.

        I’m not sure it’s right.

        The approach they’re using it letting people sue providers into oblivion, right? Suing a State-X provider from State-Y for something that is legal simply can’t work.

        Now if they could sue the woman herself then it might work, but they’ve got this thing where they don’t want to go after the woman herself.

        If they’re going to criminalize abortion, then they need to go after the woman having an abortion.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

          one proposal before that state’s legislature criminalizes any Missourian obtaining an abortion across state lines. Another criminalizes helping a woman cross state lines to obtain an abortion.Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

            They’re going to run into the problem that they can either go after the women having abortions or they can not go after them, but they can’t do both of those things.Report

    • Mike Schilling in reply to Pinky says:

      The Court has a majority of partisan hacks.

      Every day they let SB8 remain demonstrates it.Report

  7. Chip Daniels says:

    Abortion is a bottomless well of false equivalence.
    “You can force a woman to wear a mask so we can force her to carry an unwanted pregnancy!”

    “I can kill an intruder so an embryo is intruding on my body!”

    These are stupid because abortion isn’t really “like” any other thing. It isn’t like a vaccine shot, it isn’t like smoking, it isn’t like an intruder or interstate commerce or anything else.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      “Are there limits to your jurisdiction?”
      “What do you mean?”
      “Like, you’ve argued that you have the right to prevent me from purchasing epipens from Europe.”
      “False equivalence!”Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

        Why is a limit on buying things from Europe equivalent or even germaine to travel bans on abortion?

        Can you provide some logical connection?Report

        • Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          Owning the libs?Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          Chip, I’m asking if there are limits to your jurisdiction.

          Because, if you don’t have any, not having any would include the ability to prevent stuff like “crossing state lines to get an abortion”.

          “But that’s stupid.”
          “Perhaps. That said, it certainly seems to be the case that stupid things exist.”Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

            And I admit to a prejudice on my part: An unwillingness to draw even a fuzzy line at the limits of your jurisdiction is a big hint, as far as I’m concerned, that you don’t want to put a line down.Report

            • DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird says:

              oh, and all you people who affect confusion at what Jaybird means when he talks about “high-trust / high-collaboration societies”?

              One of the things that’s low-trust is when someone insists that their response to every situation depends on the situation and they can’t say for sure what they’d do without being there.

              Because…that means I can’t trust you not to stab me in the back. You’re telling me “there might be some circumstances where I’d decide the best thing would be to sell you out, and I won’t know what those circumstances are until we’re in them, and maybe that’s right now.”Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

            “Limits to jurisdiction” is a meaningless phrase because for every such question the only reasonable answer is “It depends on the facts and context.”

            Does the proposed jurisdiction address a compelling problem?

            Is the proposed jurisdiction the least invasive method of addressing the problem?

            And so on.

            If you are trying to come up with a “limit of jurisdiction ” independent of facts and context then yeah that is a monumental error.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              So if the very idea of having limits to jurisdiction is meaningless, we will find ourselves somewhere right around “here”.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                You’re welcome to lay out your limits of jurisdiction.

                Hopefully in a way that makes it clear why buying an Epipen from Europe is just like buying an abortion across state lines.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I’m the guy who believes in pretty hard limits to jurisdiction! Like “it’s none of the government’s business if I buy an epipen from Germany!”

                There are people, however, who believe that “Yes. This is an appropriate thing for the government to regulate and even forbid.”

                Seriously, we’ve discussed this. I believe that the government should have limits to its jurisdiction that give a lot more wiggle room to citizens.

                Fair enough. You believe that the government should have fewer than I believe it should have.

                I’m saying that if you’re unwilling to draw a line, you’re going to find yourself wondering “how in the heck are we in a place where people are, seriously!, arguing that this is an appropriate thing for the government to regulate and even forbid?!?!?!?”

                You can cry out “Don’t they believe in a right to body autonomy? Privacy?”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Do these limits of yours have limits?

                Like, are there any possible circumstances in which you would agree that it’s appropriate for government to restrict international commerce?

                Or are there any possible facts or context in which it might be appropriate to restrict THIS type of commerce but not THAT one?

                Or is this just some first principle thing where no matter the fact or circumstance, government must never, ever, no matter what, ever restrict international commerce?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Like, are there any possible circumstances in which you would agree that it’s appropriate for government to restrict international commerce?

                Sure. Like between corporate entities. Or, when it comes to individuals, with a warrant.

                Or are there any possible facts or context in which it might be appropriate to restrict THIS type of commerce but not THAT one?

                Sure. But those facts or context come up *AFTER* the establishment that the jurisdiction is back there and can only encroach here with cause.

                Or is this just some first principle thing where no matter the fact or circumstance, government must never, ever, no matter what, ever restrict international commerce?

                I already said that it could.

                But I am also saying that if I want to buy an epipen from Germany, I should be able to.

                What’s the argument that you have for it being appropriate for the FDA to forbid me from purchasing it, again?

                Does the argument that the FDA ought to have this jurisdiction over my body map pretty well to abortion or nah?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                OK, so your ‘limits of jurisdiction” can’t be stated, other than to say “It depends on the facts and circumstances.”

                Which is my position as well.

                What hasn’t been made clear is how the facts and circumstances of the international market in Epipens is comparable to crossing state lines to get an abortion.

                Because that’s your logic, isn’t it, that if one supports restrictions on Epipens, one must then support restriction on abortion?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Oh, I can draw a fuzzy line. For example, “it does not extend so far as to prevent me from purchasing something legal to purchase in Germany”.

                It’s because I believe in pretty hard limits of the government’s jurisdiction and they do not extend that far.

                Which brings me back to the questions that you’re not answering:

                What’s the argument that you have for it being appropriate for the FDA to forbid me from purchasing it, again?

                Does the argument that the FDA ought to have this jurisdiction over my body map pretty well to abortion or nah?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

                What’s the argument that you have for it being appropriate for the FDA to forbid me from purchasing it, again?

                The FDA is in charge of making sure things you put into your body are safe meaning they won’t hurt you. Since they have no jurisdiction over German epipen manufacturers to ensure that safety to American standards, their default is to forbid purchase, not argue for more resources to test and ensure compliance. If you believe this is FDA overreach, you need to get their authorizing laws changed.

                Does the argument that the FDA ought to have this jurisdiction over my body map pretty well to abortion or nah?

                In this case – and a good many others – the FDa is not preventing you from obtaining or using an epipen, its just restricting which ones you can obtain easily. In the abortion case, thanks to SCOTUS, states are now actively preventing women from obtaining any abortion services, meaning states are exercising control over women’s bodies in ways the FDA isn’t regarding epipens.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

                I was kind of making a throwback to this discussion here.

                In that thread, Vikram Bath mentioned that he has a close family member that has a condition that has equipment to help monitor it that has been approved in Europe and that equipment has not been approved for use in the US.

                The question that I asked then and ask you now:

                Champions of the FDA, should Vikram’s family member be worried that the device in question has not been approved by said FDA?

                Because what I said then is still true: Because my immediate thought is some variant of “hey, good for Vikram.”

                In that thread, we were discussing epipens. You may remember that the single company that made epipens approved for use by the FDA had raised the price of epipens to $400.

                At the same time, the European Medicines Agency had approved about 8 different kinds of epipens and epipens in the EU cost ~$40.

                If you had a connection in Germany that got you one of the epipens approved by the EMA that had not been approved by the FDA, would you feel that use of this epipen was putting your own life in your hands?

                It seems obvious to me that it would not be.

                And the event that kicked all of that thread off was the FDA failing to approve one of the competitors to the $400 epipen.

                So, again, I’ll ask: Champions of the FDA, should Vikram’s family member be worried that the device in question has not been approved by said FDA?Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird says:

                “Champions of the FDA, should Vikram’s family member be worried that the device in question has not been approved by said FDA?”

                The problem with asking this question is that he’s just going to cross his arms and say “well, CONGRESS can just PASS A LAW if they don’t like what the FDA is doing” and when you reply “saying that Congress should pass a law is literally what the SCOTUS said in Dobbs” he’ll reply “yeah but abortion is different” and he won’t see any inconsistency in that at all. Because to him consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, whereas to us it’s a vital part of being able to assume that we don’t need to approach every social interaction as though neither party had ever encountered another human being before…Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

                Champions of the FDA, should Vikram’s family member be worried that the device in question has not been approved by said FDA?

                You do so love to mix things up so that consistent answers are impossible don’t you? and throwing back to other discussions without linking to them at the start is one of the reasons why we all think you are mostly trolling.

                So here’s my answer, which is actually consistent with the answer above – the FDA is working within the limits of jurisdiction given to it by Congress. Those limits – and the resources appropriated to them by the same Congress – don’t allow them to use the Europeans certifications as substitutes, nor do they give the FDA a way – within the limits of its jurisdiction – to do anything other then what it has done on either epipens or medical devices. contrary to myth, we federal bureaucrats don’t actually get that far out over our skis.

                That is NOT the same thing as a moral or philosophical judgement of whether the FDA is wrong to prohibit the use of those things by you and me. Its also not the same thing as whether its an appropriate limit of jurisdiction to say women can’t get abortions, because while tou may not agree with t he laws regarding epipens or medical devices, in most cases the FDA isn’t choking off all avenues. Red states quickly are choking off all avenues within the limits of their jurisdiction AND they are seeking to impose their jurisdiction beyond their physical borders. That, to use your analogy, would be lik ethe FDA engaging in enforcement against European epipen manufacturers for not complying with US safety mandates for epipens they can’t legally sell in the US.

                Finally – scientifically – no, Vikram’s family shouldn’t be worried about the risks of using that device any more then you should be worried about using a German epipen. There’s good solid data indicating both are safe. The FDA is simple prevented form assessing that data by the limits of its jurisdiction, which requires laws to be changed if our desired outcome is allowing the importation of these things to the US.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

                You do so love to mix things up so that consistent answers are impossible don’t you?

                Here’s where I’m going to say something that you are likely to find irritating:

                I think that my answers are consistent across time.

                Not that “consistency” is a virtue in itself, of course, but it is possible to have principles that apply to more than just one single point at one single time when one’s preferred political party is in power.

                Finally – scientifically – no, Vikram’s family shouldn’t be worried about the risks of using that device any more then you should be worried about using a German epipen.

                I believe that you are the first FDA booster to have answered that question. You should take some satisfaction in that. (“Good for him!”, I’m thinking to myself.)

                The FDA is simple prevented form assessing that data by the limits of its jurisdiction, which requires laws to be changed if our desired outcome is allowing the importation of these things to the US.

                I appreciate that it has limits to its jurisdiction but it’s a weird “sorry, I can’t do anything about my preventing you from getting epipens. My hands are tied!” kinda jurisdiction limitation. “Nice try”, I’ll say.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

                By federal law, federal agencies can’t lobby congress. They can propose legislation when they see fit but based on the limits of the existing law. So if FDA determined this needed to change, or were pressured into wanting to change it by outside forces, they have a path to get legislation before the Hill – though there’ no guarantee that legislation would go anywhere.

                So far as I know, there’s no pressure external to the FDA to change this situation. And clearly internal to the agency this isn’t a priority. Should it be? Maybe.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

                So far as I know, there’s no pressure external to the FDA to change this situation.

                That’s because it’s captured.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

                I imagine that there are a handful of things that follow from “it’s a corrupt institution” but I’m good with just leaving this stuff here.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H says:

                “[T]he [FDA] is not preventing you from obtaining or using an [Epipen], its (sic) just restricting which ones you can obtain easily.”

                Except for the part where, y’know, importing pharmaceuticals is illegal.Report

              • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck says:

                Yes – and if you read my response you know I said that if we don’t like that we have to get laws changed. That’s how our system works.

                Now, in the case of pharmaceuticals and medical devices we normies are up against large companies with deep pockets and a vested interest in keeping things the way they are for profit making reasons. Which absolutely sucks big eggs through small straws. Its also the reality we face. SO to me lamenting the FDA’s position, and then using it to compare to abortion regulation is at best a red herring.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

                Do you think that it’s appropriate for young women wishing to control their own sexual destinies to get abortions in jurisdictions where they are illegal despite being in those jurisdictions?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

                I don’t agree that abortions should be illegal.

                And as a practical matter, in jurisdictions where its now illegal, women of any age can no longer openly seek abortions. History tells us that rich women will still be able to obtain abortions in those jurisdictions, and poorer women won’t. The rich women who do will be breaking the law, and they will have the resources to avoid the consequences of that decision, as will those providing them their abortions.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

                Oh, was my question about the practical matter?

                Thanks for answering it, then.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H says:

                “Welp, guess it’s just illegal now and there’s nuthin’ we can do because Government” is not the response I was expecting from you.Report

              • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck says:

                I didn’t say there was nothing you could do. I simply said here’s the field of play with respect to the limits of jurisdiction as established by current law both for the FDA case and for the abortion case. I also described why I believe the situations are different. If you want to have the question about options going forward I’m game, but that’s not the set of questions Jaybird asked.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H says:

                “If you don’t like what the FDA is doing, you should get Congress to pass a law about it! However, that’s impossible, so arguing that Congress should pass a law to fix abortion is not a valid response to concerns about the Dobbs ruling.”Report

              • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck says:

                Dobbs actually doesn’t tell Congress to pass national laws. Dobbs tells Congress its none of Congress’s business because the states have to pass laws.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

                This is what I’m referring to when I say that I haven’t heard anyone who can articulate Dobbs make a case for travel restrictions being found constitutional. If someone read Dobbs and comes away with “its none of Congress’s business because the states have to pass laws”, then how can I trust their take on some theoretical case?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

                Dobbs clearly said that Roe was wrongly decided and that there is no federal nexus because none of the articles of or amendments to the Constitution grants rights via substantive due process. And because the court see’s no fundamental right to bodily autonomy in the Constitution, its up to the states to make 50 independent decisions about abortion. Now I suspect that should Congress act on abortion as it is trying to do on marriage, this Court will overturn the federal statute as unconstitutional because it violates the delegation of powers doctrine in the Constitution.

                Were I expect the Court will paint itself into a corner is the constitutionality of the desire by some states to prosecute women for crossing state lines to obtain abortions. That would be a clear violation of the interstate commerce clause of the constitution.Report

              • InMD in reply to Philip H says:

                There is a doctrine called the dormant commerce clause that renders state laws that unduly burden interstate commerce unconstitutional. I suspect a number of at least the more radical laws would/will run into that, at least to the extent they attempt to restrict activity over state lines. You may also be able to make an argument for at least some level of federal structure setting minimal standards on the procedure that pre-empt state restrictions, based on that argument. What a conservative SCOTUS does with it is of course anyone’s guess but there are sound theories, for those of us who care about precedent anyway.Report

              • DavidTC in reply to InMD says:

                There is a doctrine called the dormant commerce clause that renders state laws that unduly burden interstate commerce unconstitutional. I suspect a number of at least the more radical laws would/will run into that, at least to the extent they attempt to restrict activity over state lines.

                I’m sure there has been a court case about that, otherwise we all know some states would make it illegal to go to Nevada and hire a legal prostitute.

                Yes, there are _also_ jurisdiction problems with outlawing people doing things in other states at a basic level.

                But even if ‘stopping your people from doing things in other states’ was sometimes allowed in general (Which I’m not sure it is): Abortion, last I checked, was a _purchased service_, and someone traveling between states to get one is, by definition, doing interstate commerce.

                Which, incidentally, means that Congress certainly _could_ regulate that, even if for some reason the court says they can’t regulate abortion generally. They could say traveling between states for abortions is always illegal, regardless of state laws allowing or disallowing it. (Or always legal, but they don’t need to say that, it’s legal by default.)Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

                Dobbs doesn’t say that at all. It finds that there is no Constitutional right to abortion. Congress can pass laws on matters that don’t violate Constitutional rights, and the executive branch can act on those laws. Congress and the executive branch aren’t forbidden from acting on matters that aren’t rights; they’re forbidden from acting on matters that are.

                Dobbs says “The Court overrules [Roe and Casey] and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.” Why wouldn’t that include the House and Senate?

                Kavanaugh’s concurrence puts it this way: “The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected representatives to resolve through the democratic process in the States or Congress—like the numerous other difficult questions of American social and economic policy that the Constitution does not address.” There’s nothing in Alito’s majority opinion that indicates otherwise.

                The Democrats know that Congress could act in support of abortion; they’ve been clear both on trying to do that on one side of the issue and decrying that the Republicans may do so on the other. We all know that the electorate is split on the issue, and that split is largely geographic, so individual states are acting on their perceptions of their voters’ preferences. But there’s no reason that a more united US couldn’t act on the issue through legislation.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                ” “it does not extend so far as to prevent me from purchasing something legal to purchase in Germany”.”

                This isn’t a principle, or a line or a limit.
                Not even a fuzzy.

                Its you who are not answering your own question.
                What are the limits of government jurisdiction?

                The reason the question can’t be answered is it depends on the facts and circumstance, which your very own answer exemplifies.

                Epipens are different than abortion, which are both different than plutonium and cocaine.

                So the limits of jurisdiction are different in each case.

                So in the end, the question we started with- crossing state lines for abortion- has nothing to do with the principle of jurisdictional power of government,
                This entire subthread is a rabbit hole of irrelevancy.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                The fuzzy line is “it’s somewhere between there and over there”.

                If you’re asking for a razor-thin bright line, I don’t think that I could provide that and I don’t think it’d be reasonable for me to ask that of you.

                So I didn’t.

                I instead, asked you this:

                What’s the argument that you have for it being appropriate for the FDA to forbid me from purchasing it, again?

                Does the argument that the FDA ought to have this jurisdiction over my body map pretty well to abortion or nah?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                I actually agree with you on this. We should be able to buy Epipens from France.

                But the argument doesn’t map, at all to abortion, and what I keep asking you is for some logic as to why you think it does.

                “Control over your body” is a piss poor argument because there are several obvious exceptions.

                The government does have a very strong justification to restrict items which are dangerous or ineffective.

                The most strident pro-choice supporter like me also supports strict regulation of abortion drugs or procedures which are dangerous or ineffective.

                So the comparison between Epipens and abortion based on “control over my body” logic fails here.

                Got anything else?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Oh! I don’t remember you arguing that back when we were discussing how it was illegal to import epipens from France.

                But the argument doesn’t map, at all to abortion, and what I keep asking you is for some logic as to why you think it does.

                It has to do with the limits of the jurisdiction of the law.

                Like, just, “does the law extend here?”

                The government does have a very strong justification to restrict items which are dangerous or ineffective.

                From what I understand, abortion is considered dangerous (lethal, even) to at least one person involved in the procedure.

                This gives it a little bit of justification to restrict it, as I understand the argument.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                So now the argument changes from juridiction over a persons body, to when life begins.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Chip,

                By accepting the “when life begins” framing, you’re accepting the antiabortionist’s contention that Killing A Baby Oughtn’t Be Allowed. You’re just disagreeing with them over whether, exactly, the thing you’re killing is A Baby.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                No it doesn’t. The argument is that the law has jurisdiction because of the other person involved in the procedure.

                Are you trying to start arguing that “but that’s not a person”?

                If so, you’re the one introducing “but we haven’t defined when life begins” into the conversation.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                If your argument is now that jurisdiction is valid where another person is involved the your starting equivalency of Epipens is even more false so I’m even more puzzled why you chose to interject it.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Let me quote what you said:

                The government does have a very strong justification to restrict items which are dangerous or ineffective.

                I’m willing to agree with that.

                Now I’m pointing out that the government says that abortion is dangerous to at least one entity.

                Which means that, let me copy and paste this again: The government does have a very strong justification to restrict items which are dangerous or ineffective.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                So comparing it to a ban on Epipens is indeed a false equivalence.

                Because as you say, it could argued that they are very different.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Chip, I’m not comparing abortion to a ban on epipens.

                I’m comparing the jurisdiction over abortion to the jurisdiction over banning epipens.

                I’m not comparing two very different things.
                I’m comparing two very similar things.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                In what way are they similar, if as you say,, one affects only one person but the other affects two?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Silly Chip, they both involve THE GOVERNMENT don’t ya know?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                They both say “your bodily autonomy is not absolute and you do not have the right to do whatever you want to your body”.

                You wanna hear something crazy? They did polling on “bodily autonomy” and it no longer is primarily associated with abortion. People now primarily associate it with anti-vaxxers.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                If the only comparison is that both involve bodily autonomy then it fails to be a meaningful equivalency and is functionally false.

                That bodily autonomy is limited is trivially true. In fact it’s so true that I suspect that Pinky and I and everyone on this blog agrees.

                Where it fails is that it ignores the question of when and how and under what circumstances it may be limited.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                No, the comparison is between the government’s jurisdiction over your alleged bodily autonomy.

                This reminds me of the whole “gay marriage debate” thing. I argued that the people who opposed gay marriage sounded like the people who opposed black people and white people marrying.

                “OH YOU’RE SAYING THAT BEING GAY IS LIKE BEING BLACK?!?!?”

                No.

                I’m saying that people who are opposed to gay people marrying sound like the people who are opposed to people with different skin colors marrying.

                “BEING BLACK IS NOT LIKE BEING GAY.”
                “I’m not saying it is. My point is about the opponents of the marriages. Not about the people getting married.”
                “I CAN’T BELIEVE THAT YOU THINK THAT BLACK PEOPLE CAN BE CLOSETED.”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                “I’m saying that people who are opposed to gay people marrying sound like the people who are opposed to people with different skin colors marrying.”

                Yes, they are.

                This doesn’t help your case though.

                “the comparison is between the government’s jurisdiction over your alleged bodily autonomy”…

                and what, exactly?

                “Between” requires two things. What is the second thing that is being compared here?

                Abortion, Epipens, gay sex all involve bodily autonomy.
                We all agree on that!

                Bodily autonomy may rightfully be limited depending on circumstances.

                We all agree on that too!

                So if we all agree on this, how useful is it to shout “Epipens! Bodily Autonomy!”

                What you need to do is tell us what those circumstances are for you, and why you think Epipens is somehow useful equivalency in separating my position from Pinky’s.

                Because right now you’re just telling us how we all agree.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Well, my equivalency is on how the government claims jurisdiction over both.

                Like, for the potentially faulty epipen that you might be purchasing from France, they claim jurisdiction over preventing you from harming yourself by purchasing one and using it.

                You may say something like “THEY SHOULDN’T HAVE THAT JURISDICTION!”

                Heck, you may even say “the FDA is abusing its charter by being too restrictive”.

                Others, however, might point out that this is an appropriate use of government. Perhaps they would ask, incredulously, whether you think we should exclude the middle. (You wouldn’t believe what some people have argued when it comes to making sure that the FDA doesn’t become more like Europe’s EMA in the past!)

                And since you agree that bodily autonomy may rightfully be limited… I’m asking you what distinctions *YOU* are making and if you can state them eloquently enough to argue that, of course, the state should not intrude on a woman’s right to get this medical procedure because it’s so freakin’ obvious that it’s her body and therefore her choice.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                In terms of “jurisdiction” there is no difference between Epipens and abortion.

                Which is why “jurisdiction” is such a painfully inadequate word here.

                The state, rightfully, has jurisdiction over both. And anything else that might touch on a compelling matter such as defending life.

                It has the rightful power to declare that embryos (or chickens) are humans covered by the 14th Amendment and therefore it has a compelling interest in outlawing omelets, assuming the facts and circumstances bear this out.

                It also has the rightful power, depending on the facts and circumstances, to declare that Epipens are dangerous and ineffective and therefore has a compelling interest in safeguarding the lives of the users.

                But having the rightful power, doesn’t compel it to make those findings.

                The government can just as rightfully declare that embryos are a tasty snack regulated by the USDA.
                And that Epipens are efficacious and safe.
                Depending of course, on the facts and circumstances.

                So in terms of “jurisdiction” there is no difference between Epipens and abortion. But upon that, both Pinky and I agree.

                So you aren’t really making any useful statements here. “Jurisdiction” can’t do any work here.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                The state, rightfully, has jurisdiction over both.

                This is where you and I disagree.

                I believe in a right to, among other things, privacy.

                This right to privacy makes the government’s claim to jurisdiction a false claim.

                Now I admit that privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution… but I do think that it’s an emanation from a penumbra.

                But I’m one of those people that believes in individual rights that exist outside of the reach of government jurisdiction (though, sadly, not outside of the reach of its power).Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                OK.
                So according to the logic that you’ve laid out here, if I want to purchase a cargo container of plutonium, well, mister, its no one’s business but mine.

                B-but but but….I know, I know, that’s not what you actually mean, but your logic doesn’t have any limits or boundaries or caveats to separate out the absurd from the reasonable.

                These ‘limits and boundaries and caveats” are the essence of politics. Its those things that separate Republicans from Democrats, liberals from conservatives.

                A reasonable boundary of privacy marks a liberal society- an unreasonable one marks a repressive one.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                “And since we can limit you from purchasing plutonium, therefore we can limit you from getting an abortion.”

                “No! That’s not the point I was making!”

                “It’s the point you made.”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                No, that’s exactly the point I was making! You’ve understood it perfectly!

                In fact, this was exactly what Roe stated. That a person’s bodily autonomy was flexible and limited, depending (as I’ve stated half a dozen times already) on certain facts and circumstances.

                Plutonium has a different set of facts and circumstances than a first trimester abortion, which has a different set of circumstances than a third. So all these things can be allowed or restricted differently.

                Yes, this is precisely how it works.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                So you think that the government has the jurisdiction to prevent you from getting an abortion, just that it shouldn’t.

                While I believe that the government’s jurisdiction does not extend that far. (Granted, its power does.)

                And your argument is that it *DOES* have that jurisdiction! It’s good that it has that jurisdiction!

                Okay.Report

              • DavidTC in reply to Jaybird says:

                I really don’t understand what Chip is even arguing at this point, so as someone nominally on his side (I think?) I will say I believe the government _shouldn’t_ have jurisdiction over what you do to your own body. I don’t know what we quite mean by ‘does’ or ‘doesn’t’…it _asserts_ jurisdiction, but I do not accept it and believe it should not. I fundamentally am in charge of my own body.

                Oh, and me just add this in: It shouldn’t have jurisdiction over what someone does with _someone else’s_ body, with their consent, either.

                The government’s power stops at our skin, what happens inside that is us. (Philosphically speaking, I mean. Obviously, actual bodily autonomy involves things outside the skin too. It’s a metaphor, don’t nitpick.)

                Including using drugs that have not been found safe, although I will insert the caveat that they do have a right to insist on proper labeling and warnings on things sold, and to stop fraud in a general sense.Report

              • DavidTC in reply to DavidTC says:

                As for vaccines: Just because the government doesn’t have the right to say ‘You cannot ingest those drugs’, doesn’t mean the government can’t say ‘If you ingest those drugs, you cannot drive while under their influence’. The government has not, as far I as I know, suggested tying people down and injecting vaccines into them, but merely restricted what they can do without them.

                Now, should some of those things they want to restrict be understood to be constitutional rights that cannot be restricted? The right to travel, perhaps? Which means governments cannot require people to do _other_ things to gain that right?

                Maybe, but I’ll point out the government has the ability to detain people who are a danger to others. Both in the psychological sense, where it’s called involuntary commitment, and the disease sense, where it’s called a quarantine. This is an inherent power of governments, and is generally accepted by the courts when the government makes any case.

                And while I’m pretty mistrustful of the government’s police power, there aren’t really any cases of the government overusing the quarantine power, as far as I know. (As opposed to the involuntary commitment power, which has been misused quite a lot for people found troublesome!)

                If anything, the government is much too reluctant and/or slow to use that power.

                But my point is there are actually a lot of rights and governmental powers in conflict when it comes to infectious disease prevention, so people can’t just assert some absolute right to travel…and I would argue that people _still_ have bodily autonomy. They can refuse a vaccine, hell, let’s invent some hypothetical world where a person is permanently infectious with a lethal disease that kills everyone else that comes near them: The government still has no right to forcible _cure_ them…but it also has the right to basically hold them forever while they are threats to others.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to DavidTC says:

                “Jurisdiction” is a useless method of determining the proper role of government activity because for nearly any claimed limit of jurisdiction, an exception can be found to falsify it.

                Note Jaybirds claim that government jurisdiction should not intrude on the purchase of Epipens, the my exception of plutonium.

                Or another example- does the government’s jurisdiction extend to dictating what time you wake up?
                Of course not, a reasonable person will say.

                Ok so a soldier in the field just gets up whenever he feels like it?

                Oh, ha ha Chip that’s just an absurd gotcha!

                Except it isn’t.
                The initial response assumed “reasonable” and “normal” circumstances.

                But that’s the entire point!

                Jurisdiction is flexible and negotiated. It expand and contracts depending on circumstances and facts.

                This isn’t just my idea. When courts are determining if a law is Constitutional, they apply logic tests, such as “Is there some compelling public interest” and “Is the proposed remedy the least intrusive” and so on

                Simply waving a hand over an area and declaring it out of bounds for jurisdiction is a radical re-imagining of how governments work.Report

              • DavidTC in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Or another example- does the government’s jurisdiction extend to dictating what time you wake up?

                LOL. You picked the _wrong_ example for that with me, man. I have Delayed Sleep Phase Disorder, and I am well aware that the government, right now, currently, in the actual existing world, dictates you are awake at certain times.

                If you get a summons to court, guess what? You have to wake up for that! And no, no nitpicking that they just require you to be there, not awake…if you are asleep on the witness stand and refuse to stop, they will arrest you unless you can prove it’s involuntary and you have narcolepsy or something.

                The amount of time the government has _mandated_ I been somewhere, and thus wake up, _hours_ before I normally would at around noon, is astonishing, and you really did not think this position through.

                This isn’t just my idea. When courts are determining if a law is Constitutional, they apply logic tests, such as “Is there some compelling public interest” and “Is the proposed remedy the least intrusive” and so on

                Okay, you are arguing a completely different thing than ‘jurisdiction’. ‘Constitutional’ and ‘has jurisdiction’ are not the same thing.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to DavidTC says:

                “The government’s power stops at our skin, what happens inside that is us.”

                See, Chip thinks that’s not true. He thinks that everything is in the state, nothing should be outside the state, nothing can be against the state.

                His whole approach to government actions is “well, obviously they can, I just hope they don’t.”Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird says:

                “So you think that the government has the jurisdiction to prevent you from getting an abortion, just that it shouldn’t.”

                Based on my conversations with him and people who say things like what he says? Yes, that’s exactly what he thinks.Report

              • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck says:

                Well its reality, at least in the dozen or so states with trigger laws that came into force after Roe was overturned. And it will soon become realty in a dozen more states that are debating near total or total bans post-Roe.

                Now SHOULD government be allowed to do that? No, I don’t believe it should. And that’s been one of the half dozen issues that animate how I vote.

                But it is a thing that governments have asserted jurisdiction over.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

                Do you see the people as being prior to the government?

                Do you see the government as being prior to the people?

                Now here’s the big question: Can you tell when you think the one but the person you’re talking to thinks the other?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

                I have always seen the people as prior to the government. And yes, In many cases I can tell one from the other – though you and a few others here do make it tough with your writing styles.

                Doesn’t change what is, however. Only informs what I work to create.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

                “You’re making arguments but your own personal opinions are illegible!” is a compliment where I’m from, for the record.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Philip H says:

                Obviously, people are prior to government. Then they set one up. Once they do that, the priority of the people to the government they chose to set up doesn’t help us answer any interesting questions.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci says:

                “obviously”

                Yeah. Obviously.

                “the priority of the people to the government they chose to set up”

                Let alone the priority of the people to the government their parents inherited.Report

              • DavidTC in reply to DensityDuck says:

                Can we all just stop using ‘jurisdiction’ in this thread? Because no one is using it in any actual meaningful or correct sense.

                People having a _right_ to get an abortion would not stop the government from having ‘jurisdiction’ over abortion. Jurisdiction is legal authority over something, and it continues to exist even if that legal authority is constrained in some manner.

                E.g., to get off abortion for a second: The government should not be able to regulate in any manner what drugs exist inside my body. They should not have _jurisdiction_ over the chemical composition of my body.

                But the government should be able to mandate that drugs are labeled with proper ingredients and warnings and stuff as they do have jurisdiction over that…but we need to bar them from attempting regulations that are just attempting to do that first thing and control what drugs exist inside me. This would be a ‘right’ people have, not ‘the government lacking jurisdiction’.

                Or, to put it yet another way: The US government is _barred_ from regulating my speech. The US government _does not have jurisdiction_ to regulate the speech of some random guy in France.

                These are entirely different things, and half this discussion has been people conflating them.

                For the record: I argue that the government should not have jurisdiction over the insides of my body, and _also_ that the government should be barred from deliberating attempting to stop anything I wish to do to the insides of my body. The first part of that is ‘literally no authority by the government to control’ (LIke my body is in France), the second part is ‘a right I have to do a thing’, which can be balanced against other rights.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to DavidTC says:

                I agree but do need to point out that things like regulating drugs and food safety is quite literally, the government having jurisdiction over your body and what you put in it.Report

              • DavidTC in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                WRT drugs, I didn’t say the government _didn’t_ have jurisdiction over the inside of my body.

                I said they _shouldn’t_ have it.

                As for food safety, I have no problems with people eating whatever foods they want. Feel free to drink bleach if you want.

                I have problems with people selling unfit things as food. If people want to do that, they damn well better have some sort of signed waiver on the part of everyone who ate it where that buyer acknowledges what they are eating could be poison. And labeling laws that had the product say that.

                See, that would be the ‘competing rights’ part of that. People have a right to do whatever they want to their own body, but they also have a right to not be _unwittingly_ poisoned.Report

  8. Kazzy says:

    “Consider pre- and post-Roe America, and anticipate the ramifications of Dobbs. Additionally, contemplate the environment in China during Deng Xiaoping’s one-child policy. It is not enough to examine what life is like when statues effectively require women to give birth, we must also confront what life is like when the government requires women not to give birth.”

    Um… why? One of those things is happening right here, right now. One of those things happened elsewhere in the past. One of those things is a realty we must confront. And one of those things is something that isn’t even on any table here in America.

    So why do I have to consider both extremes when only one extreme is a reality? Let’s focus on what is actually happening and not contemplate what could happen in an alternate dimension that is no where near our own.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Kazzy says:

      If we’re going to focus on reality, then let’s admit that no state requires women to give birth. Not really, and not even “effectively”.Report

    • Chris in reply to Kazzy says:

      I think, though it’s always hard to tell, that she’s just saying it’s bad when the government intervenes in the choice of whether to have children, regardless of how the government intervenes, and if that is in fact what she’s doing, I think she’s right. Not sure that was the best way to make that point, but whatever.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Chris says:

        I can get on board with that and agree with that point. But the second sentence gives the impression we should look at this from all angles off “government intervention into whether to have children” as if one side is saying, “Here is how the government should intervene” and another side is saying, “No, THIS is how the government should intervene.”

        What’s really happening is one side is saying the government should intervene and one is saying that it shouldn’t. In which case it should be obvious which side she should be supporting, at least in regards to this question.Report

    • cam in reply to Kazzy says:

      The point is that if a government that can legally to force you to give birth, it can also turn around and legally force you to have an abortion. If you have no right to bodily autonomy either of those are possible.

      The argument that forced abortion is a wild ‘alternate dimension’ thing that would never really happen runs up hard against the fact that it did happen in China and that in the past this country conducted forced sterilizations of people it decided shouldn’t breed (what was the principle under which we decided that was wrong..?)Report

      • Kazzy in reply to cam says:

        Ok then. If the argument is that government should not try to regulate reproduction in any way, shape, or form, I support that.Report

        • cam in reply to Kazzy says:

          To me, that’s the point. This is an area where the govt has no business regulating or dictating decisions of citizens. Period.

          It astonishes and appalls that the party that supposedly thinks that the govt that governs least, governs best is the one that most wants to sit in the ob/gyn exam room and monitor and regulate everything.Report

  9. Chip Daniels says:

    Death panels have come to America:

    When Can Dying Patients Get a Lifesaving Abortion? These Hospital Panels Will Now Decide.
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/07/abortion-ban-hospital-ethics-committee-mother-life-death.html?scrolla=5eb6d68b7fedc32c19ef33b4Report

  10. rexknobus says:

    What follows may raise some hackles…

    First my bona fides: 100% pro-choice. Got my vasectomy in 1977.

    Whenever the stuff hits the fan about abortion, the folks on my side of the fence keep bringing up “bodily autonomy,” “barefoot and pregnant,” and “Margaret Atwood,” when what I see and hear on the other side is: “don’t kill babies.” Doesn’t it all come down to a relatively simple (and thus pretty unsolvable) difference of definition? “When is it a baby?” I’m sure there are some far-out “Gilead-loving” types out there, but for the most part, it’s not really (for the pro-life crowd) about controlling the woman’s body in question, as much as it is about saving what they see as the life within.

    Sorry if I have offended.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to rexknobus says:

      You would think so, wouldn’t you?

      But take note of the overlap of Set A, those who believe abortion is murder, and Set B, those who are hostile to contraception, AKA the single most effective method of reducing said murder.

      Take note also of how warmly they embrace even those who have murdered babies, such as Rep. DesJarlais. And how they themselves eagerly participate in contraception, even as they introduce legislation to make it more difficult to obtain.

      The only logical thread that connects these facts is the Wilhoit Principle.

      They want to use contraception and know that abortion is always there as a backstop, but they want it to be on a privileged basis, available only to the correct members of the Ingroup.Report

      • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        FiveThirtyEight shows Republicans with slightly higher support for legal birth control pills and condoms than Democrats or Independents.

        https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/abortion-birth-control-poll/Report

        • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

          And yet, as with abortion, Republican politicians especially in red states have a consistent record of voting against sex education that includes age appropriate references to birth control; provision of birth control at little or no cost via various health programs; and the continued and absurd refusal to make women’s birth control options more expensive and often not covered by insurance.

          Got any ideas that could square that circle for us?Report

          • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

            Every day I have greater confidence in the ability of schools to determine what’s age appropriate.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

              Lots of schools try to determine what’s age appropriate only to be told by politicians and activists with zero understanding of that concept to pipe down and shut up. I mean we can’t openly discuss that some kids have two moms in parts of the US. When kids have two moms in those parts of the US. That prohibition was foisted on schools.

              Wanna try again – take birth control. Teenagers in the US have sex. You may not like that morally, but they do. There’s lots of academic study that say that sex education that talks about how pregnancy results from sex and how to prevent pregnancy if you choose to have sex LOWERS the rate of teenage pregnancy, as well as lowers the rate of abortion. But Conservatives seem to ONLY want abstinence focused sex education. Which doesn’t stop teenage sex, nor does it stop teenage pregnancy. Seems to me that IF republicans do support legally available birth control (including condom) then they ought to be willing to support sex ed that provides teenagers – who are still having sex regardless – with information about which birth control choices they might make.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to rexknobus says:

      Sure.

      But where do those people stand on health care for pregnant people?
      Health care for babies and children?
      Health care for the parents of babies and children?
      Maternity leave?
      Paternity leave?
      Child care and preschool?
      Public education in general?
      Food assistance programs for children and families?
      Etc, etc, etc.

      If these folks are so genuinely concerned about these “babies” than you think they’d support all the things that are good for the lives of babies.Report

      • DensityDuck in reply to Kazzy says:

        “If these folks are so genuinely concerned about these “babies” than you think they’d support all the things that are good for the lives of babies.”

        What they figure is that you can get all of those things from your church. “I don’t go to church because god is a lie used to control the poor!” “Well, that sounds like a problem for you to solve, not a problem for me to pay for.”Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to DensityDuck says:

          I agree.

          Another way to put this is that they want those things to be privileges dispensed by the Ingroup to a favored few instead of a public benefit enjoyed by all.

          Exhibit A is how they went ballistic over Sandra Fluke having the temerity to ask for birth control to be covered by insurance.Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            Another way to put this is that they want those things to be privileges dispensed by the Ingroup to a favored few instead of a public benefit enjoyed by all.

            Public Education is widespread. Food is widespread, so much so that food activists have to move the goal posts by crazy levels to the point I would qualify as “not having access”. Maternity and Paternity leave don’t seem to be on the same level as “food”. HC already has lots of gov intervention, it would be a lot less expensive if we had a lot more market.

            The entire argument is one of false choices.Report

      • Love and Peas in reply to Kazzy says:

        HJ Heinz stood for health care for babies and children. That was a business decision, as much as an religious and ethical decision — their mothers (often widows) could not work without childcare.

        Governmental intervention is not necessary so long as there is a compelling business interest (he paid women less, as was the common practice of the day).

        How often do you refuse to buy something because of the business practices of the retailer? Of the wholesaler? Of the actual manufacturer?

        Or, shall I take a different tack?
        If I can show you, practically, that feminism is not good for the lives of babies, will you rally against it? Or do you have competing interests that tell you that “feminism must be defended, even if babies are being quantitatively hurt because of it?”Report

        • Kazzy in reply to Love and Peas says:

          I recognize that there can be competing interests between what is best for best for parents or potential parents and what is best for babies or potential babies. And I don’t think there is a clear and obvious answer as to how to best balance them.

          Pro-life people who base their support on protecting babies and disregard any and all other potential factors seem to have drawn a clear line in the sand about what should be prioritized.

          If someone is really concerned about those potential babies — such that they’d restrict the very basic rights of the mother — you’d think that concern would extend beyond the baby’s birth.Report

          • Love and Peas in reply to Kazzy says:

            I’ve really yet to read anything about conservatives against CHIP. It’s a cheap program (because kids don’t generally get sick), and it works.

            I mentioned feminism, because much of what you think is “mandatory” (for a coherent belief structure) is based on feminism, as practiced in the United States.

            Imagine a person who sincerely believes that preschool is bad for children, and that the appropriate place for a woman is raising her child (say, up to age 5). In which case, “child care and preschool” are nonsensical within his believe structure — and, I can take it a step further. It is a bad idea to have women be able to make enough money that they do not need husbands (and “make enough money” includes governmental supports to allow scofflaw corporations to pay people less than they need to survive).

            I have no idea how many Conservatives believe feminism isn’t working for our children or our country. But for those who do believe that, it is entirely ethically coherent to want to save the innocent children, and not want to give money to all these government programs. They instead believe that other societal structures, such as Family, are important and should be supported. Governmental programs that undermine Family (or Religion) should be seen with a very skeptical eye.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Love and Peas says:

              I’ve really yet to read anything about conservatives against CHIP. It’s a cheap program (because kids don’t generally get sick), and it works.

              And in 2017, Republicans tried to use it as a lever to cut things like Preventive Care Funding under the ACA. They may indeed support it, but htey have a history of using it as a cudgel (not unlike their reaction the PACT Act that Senate Republicans killed last week).

              I have no idea how many Conservatives believe feminism isn’t working for our children or our country. But for those who do believe that, it is entirely ethically coherent to want to save the innocent children, and not want to give money to all these government programs. They instead believe that other societal structures, such as Family, are important and should be supported.

              Please do link to where anti-abortion Republican politicians are indeed saying this. Because I can’t find it. And given the unwillingness of corporations to pay labor what its worth, how, exactly, can families be “supported” be supported without government intervention?Report

          • rexknobus in reply to Kazzy says:

            Perhaps it’s sort of a “triage effect.” With the (from their point of view) ongoing slaughter of the innocents happening as we speak, they have to act to prevent that first. Then, it often seems, the subsequent needs (nicely represented in your list above) get lost in the discussions about personal responsibilities, taxation, morality, religion, politics, etc. For all I know perhaps many of the pro-life folks are in favor of at least some of your list, but they can all unite in favor of the main point — stopping abortions. And being in favor of any of the “lesser” points doesn’t have the same broad support as the main point.

            This is America. Defense spending gets passed with broad bi-partisan support. But we’re still arguing about the New Deal. And everybody who hates the New Deal is over-joyed that Grandma gets her Social Security check. Stopping abortion saves the babies. Simple, direct, effective. Taking care of the babies? Well, that’s somebody else’s job. That’s welfare, right? Godless Communism. One would certainly -hope- that concern would extend beyond the baby’s birth, but that concern is not at all universal.Report

            • Pinky in reply to rexknobus says:

              I’m going to stop someone on the street from beating a hobo to death. I don’t have to take him in for the rest of my life.Report

              • rexknobus in reply to Pinky says:

                Odd comment. If I stopped someone from beating a hobo (or a baby, to bring it back our actual conversation) to death on the street, I would certainly feel some responsibility about getting the victim some care. Might even use some of my precious gasoline to drive them to a hospital. YMMVReport

              • Pinky in reply to rexknobus says:

                Well, it’s an analogy, and they’re never perfect. Maybe it sounds better if I’m the hobo. I wouldn’t expect someone to take care of me indefinitely, but I’d expect someone to save me from an attack.Report

              • rexknobus in reply to Pinky says:

                Are you in favor of some level of national defense spending? Do you hope that that spending will continue throughout your life? Or roads? Or climate research? Or this? Or that? I am afraid that we all want some care administered to us throughout our lives. We may disagree on some specifics, but no one outside of John Galt expects no care from the outside world. And he’s a mythical beast… (sorry, couldn’t resist quoting a favorite author.)Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to rexknobus says:

              Four of my relatives have NOT gotten married to their partners in order to collect more gov benefits while Pregnant.

              The most recent one is the scariest because he’s a PhD engineer and a serious math guy. He tried to have a numbers discussion with me on why this was the right move.

              There are strong arguments that some of the war on poverty is creating dysfunctional behavior.Report

              • rexknobus in reply to Dark Matter says:

                There are also some very strong arguments that the war on poverty has taken tens of millions of people out of poverty, probably even a few serious math guys.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to rexknobus says:

                There are also some very strong arguments that the war on poverty has taken tens of millions of people out of poverty,

                There are, but a lot of those argument tend to ignore 50 years of economic growth or assume it would have had no impact.

                It is hard to get data on these programs efficacy because if you come to the wrong conclusion, i.e. that they cause harm, or worse, cause more harm that good, you can expect to be labeled a racist and get all sorts of blow back.

                My expectation is some of the programs are very good (the food ones specifically), some are worthless but do no damage, and some have caused marriage rates to go off a cliff.Report

      • Pinky in reply to Kazzy says:

        I support all those things (although I’m lukewarm about paternity leave).Report

        • Kazzy in reply to Pinky says:

          Good on you then… while we may disagree on abortion we could work together in support of the rest!

          Curious why you are lukewarm on paternity leave.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

          Do the politicians who represent you vote in such a manner as to manifest your views in the world? Do you make voting decisions with those ends in mind?Report

          • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

            None of the politicians who represent me vote in a manner to manifest any of my views into the world, at least on a marginal change basis.

            I don’t look to government to perform the majority of the things on Kazzy’s list, but I like it when the government performs those appropriately and effectively.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

              So you just hope and pray those things manifest somehow? because prior to government intervention on most of those things, they were enjoyed by a relative few, and essentially made women indentured servants in their own homes.Report

  11. Jaybird says:

    Over and over again, we see polls that say (more or less) the same thing. And both sides use the same polls to argue that the public supports them.

    The polls say, more or less:

    2/3rds of people are okay with abortion in the first trimester
    2/3rds of people are queasy when it comes to abortion in the second trimester
    2/3rds of people are opposed to abortion in the third trimester (but are willing to make exceptions)

    And 2/3rds of people look at those numbers and say “SEE? THOSE PEOPLE SUPPORT MY MAXIMALIST POLICIES!”

    And now it’s the pro-lifers’ turn to see that, no, just because the crazy pro-choicers were wrong does not make the crazy pro-lifers right.Report