Patterico's Pontifications

7/19/2022

House Passes Respect for Marriage Act, 47 Republicans Vote Yes

Filed under: General — Dana @ 4:38 pm



[guest post by Dana]

Today:

The House passed the Respect For Marriage Act…to codify legal same-sex marriage nationwide, fearing that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court will rescind the right after it overturned Roe v. Wade last month.

The vote was 267-157, with 47 Republicans supporting it.

The bill would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, enshrine legal same-sex marriage for the purposes of federal law, and add legal protections for married couples of the same sex.

According to Nancy Pelosi, today’s bill was the result of a concurring opinion by Justice Thomas:

…Justice Clarence Thomas…suggested the court should revisit other rulings including, gay marriage and access to contraception. The opinion set off a firestorm on the left, with Democrats arguing that the nation’s highest court was preparing to strike down one precedent after another.

Republicans who voted against the bill today said that it was “silly,” argued that the states should decide the issue, claimed the bill was a response to Democrats’ activist base and donor base, and that Congress should focus on “real” issues (energy, inflation).

It’s a tricky spot for Republicans: A Gallup poll taken in June found that 71% of Americans support gay marriage, the highest it’s ever been. Times change.

–Dana

104 Responses to “House Passes Respect for Marriage Act, 47 Republicans Vote Yes”

  1. Hello.

    Given the unprecedented level of support for gay marriage today, it would seem unwise for Republicans to choose this hill to die on.

    And honestly, does anyone even really think about it anymore? It simply seems embedded in our culture and socity now.

    Dana (1225fc)

  2. At lkestthis hasone new provision Repeal of DOMA.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  3. The conservative libertarian republicans will support it. The christian fundo dodos will not.

    asset (1e10e4)

  4. More crabgrass.

    The house is on fire.

    DCSCA (f57529)

  5. Meanwhile, Schumer isn’t committing to taking it to a vote on the Senate floor, because the schedule is busy and they may not have time to get to it.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  6. Republicans who voted against the bill today said that:

    1. it was “silly,”

    Well maybe, except for point #2.

    2. argued that the states should decide the issue

    It’s been settled that they may not.

    3. claimed the bill was a response to Democrats’ activist base and donor base

    This is of course true, but that fact has underpinnings.

    4. and that Congress should focus on “real” issues (energy, inflation).

    The very best thing that Congress can do on these is to do nothing.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  7. And honestly, does anyone even really think about it anymore?

    “Gay” is almost “straight” these days. It’s the ever-expanding end of LGBT… that raises cackles.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  8. I mean, Jim Jordan also said that it was a stunt designed to deligitimize the Supreme Court.

    aphrael (46a864)

  9. Also hackles.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  10. If Republican legislators want to argue that a state should be free to refuse to recognize gay marriages and interracial marriages, I support attempts to force them to say so loudly and clearly so the voters can react.

    aphrael (46a864)

  11. There’s no such thing as homosexual marriage.

    Marriage is the union of a man and a woman in holy matrimony. Period.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  12. “Gay” is almost “straight” these days. It’s the ever-expanding end of LGBT… that raises cackles.

    True. From avant garde, it has become bourgeois, and if there is anything more bourgeois than marriage I don’t know what it is.

    But there are people who want a cause, not an effect. I heard some complain about corporate-sponsored floats at Chicago’s Pride Parade last month. Really.

    nk (861f64)

  13. @12. “Buttafuoco.” – David Letterman

    DCSCA (abf41e)

  14. “Marriage is the union of a man and a woman in holy matrimony. Period.”

    The 1990’s called and they want their marriage policy back.

    AJ_Liberty (c82e21)

  15. Social conservatives lost on this issue badly. They can’t even point to negative outcomes or trade offs. Gay people can openly wed and there hasn’t been a single problem or bad trend as a result.

    Kind of makes you wonder what other things the social conservatives are completely wrong about.

    Time123 (edcf73)

  16. Again, the Rs are fools if this is the hill they choose to die on. The horse is out of the barn, and they will only look like they want to go backward. It’s a losing issue. Therefore, count on them to make it a key issue.

    Dana (1225fc)

  17. Dana, and it’s bad policy. Why wreck many thousands of happy, healthy, families?
    Its been legal for 7 years and there aren’t any problems to point to to justify ending it.

    Time123 (edcf73)

  18. Its been legal for 7 years and there aren’t any problems to point to to justify ending it.
    Time123 (edcf73) — 7/19/2022 @ 7:54 pm

    marriage isn’t important enough anymore to justify protecting its biological/procreation foundation

    the younger generation has caught on to that, but no big deal

    JF (f4058d)

  19. The horse is out of the barn…

    Or, in the GOP’s case, ‘Log Cabin’ ?!?! 😉

    DCSCA (ac538a)

  20. @17 Which Rs exactly are charging up this hill? It passed the house and it will likely die in the D controlled senate.

    All of this is political theater based on speculation grounded in an intentional misrepresentation.

    frosty (de62c2)

  21. Dana @ 17. The numbers tell the story. Those who think voting for it will get them reelected voted for it. Those who think voting against it will get them reelected voted against it.

    None of them care what the country thinks. Or what will help their party. They care only about the 200,000 or so votes they need to keep their jobs.

    nk (7579e0)

  22. @20, didn’t the Texas GOP kick out the log cabin Republicans?

    Time123 (ae7b06)

  23. JF: “marriage isn’t important enough anymore to justify protecting its biological/procreation foundation”

    Two points:

    1. Nothing in the article at all suggests that gay marriage is somehow suppressing straight marriage. In fact the article provides many sociological explanations for the world-wide phenomenon.

    2. Many people who are unable to reproduce are allowed to marry. No one would think to deny two older widowers the right to marry because it would threaten “its biological/procreation foundation”. We instinctively understand that there is a care-giving and support function of marriage that is also integral to society. That role doesn’t disappear because of who people are attracted to.

    AJ_Liberty (c82e21)

  24. AJ,

    your bigotry towards Christians and the English language is noted.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  25. Rob,

    Not all Christians share your hatred of gay ppl. Please don’t presume to speak for the rest of us.

    Time123 (488f8f)

  26. Frosty is right. The GOP recognizes that gay marriage is broadly popular. The culture warriors have lost this one and the homophobe wing of the GOP is going to get screwed by the party on this one. They’ll probably make some speeches about CRT or cultural Marxism, or creeping sharia law or whatever moral panic is in vogue to keep them fired up but the social cons are going to get shafted here.

    Time123 (488f8f)

  27. I don’t hate gay people. Your lies are tiresome.

    Acting on carnal lust is a sin. Try and ask Him for forgiveness.

    Marriage is a union before God. It’s purpose is to create a family. Without such we don’t have a civilization.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  28. @25, help me understand this https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/support-gay-marriage-reaches-all-time-high-survey-finds-n1244143

    “Most major religious denominations back marriage equality, too, including white mainline Protestants (79 percent), Hispanic Roman Catholics (78 percent), religious non-Christians (72 percent) Hispanic Protestants (68 percent), white Catholics (67 percent), Black Protestants (57 percent) and other Christian denominations (56 percent).

    Religiously unaffiliated Americans were the most supportive, with 90 percent endorsing same-sex marriage.

    White evangelicals stood out as the only denomination where a majority opposed same-sex marriage, 63 percent to 34 percent. Support decreased among this group, according to PRRI, which found 41 percent of white evangelicals supported gay marriage in a 2019 survey.”

    AJ_Liberty (c82e21)

  29. he 1990’s called and they want their marriage policy back.

    AJ_Liberty (c82e21) — 7/19/2022 @ 6:58 pm

    Barack Obama, is that you?

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  30. If you want to claim the government requires legal benefits, that’s what civil unions were for. We know that wasn’t the purpose. The purpose, as we continually see from the left, is to destroy the family unit and weaken the bonds of society.

    Good job.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  31. “destroy the family unit and weaken the bonds of society.”

    And where is your evidence that gay marriage does this?

    AJ_Liberty (c82e21)

  32. @31 Not just the left, 47 republicans voted for this and it’s likely to pass the senate. Society in general, left and right, sees that gay marriage is fine. This isn’t a plot being forced upon the country. This is broadly popular.

    @32, by any measure of societal health you can name society has gotten better after the legalization of gay marriage.

    Which makes sense. Letting consenting adults live their lives as the please so long as they don’t harm others is a generally good policy.

    Time123 (717f4c)

  33. Time123 (488f8f) — 7/20/2022 @ 5:11 am
    Time123 (488f8f) — 7/20/2022 @ 5:17 am

    i don’t know why you don’t just start with this argument in every thread

    i mean, you’ve known for some time those who disagree with you are -phobes or -ists of various sorts

    you always get there eventually, so why waste everyone’s time with the slow burn?

    JF (a6d404)

  34. God loves everyone, and everyone will have their moment in the end. The only people who can destroy a family is the members of that family. I do think we over emphasis the whole rainbow thing, and I dont believe – based on past referendums, that gay marriage is even remotely popular – but then again neither are a lot of things. The drastic drop in regular church attendance – I wonder – contributed to the rise of acceptance.

    Working with Gay people – living with them – has never been a problem for me – our neighbors for decades were a gay couple who regularly watched me on the field, giving my sisters the occasional ride, were over for thanksgiving dinner, the random summer barbeque (anything can turn into a party in New Orleans). They hate the rainbow thing the LGBTQ – it embarrasses them and angers them. They were oil field professionals and worked hard to gain the respect they deserved – they didnt get it by demanding it

    EPWJ (650a62)

  35. And where is your evidence that gay marriage does this?

    AJ_Liberty (c82e21) — 7/20/2022 @ 5:41 am

    There is a slight shift here. I’m sure you didn’t selectively quote to intentionally change the meaning of the original comment. The full quote was:

    The purpose, as we continually see from the left, is to destroy the family unit and weaken the bonds of society.

    The evidence for this purpose is directly stated in queer theory. Advocates of queer theory would describe this as deconstructing the normative social constructs but once you unpack that you get destroy the family unit and weaken the bonds of society.

    The evidence for this purpose on the left generally is also not a secret. Is that new information for you?

    Your question seems to be about whether that has been effective. I think it’s too early to tell. If we find out it has been though it will be a bit late to do anything about it. It’s also a bit odd to tell conservatives that they shouldn’t argue in favor of conserving traditional institutions. It’s sort of baked in.

    frosty (2a4007)

  36. Muh principles!

    Colonel Haiku (898da7)

  37. White evangelicals stood out as the only denomination where a majority opposed same-sex marriage, 63 percent to 34 percent.

    Those people are big on the Old Testament.

    You know how the story of Sodom and Gomorrah ends, right? With Lot getting drunk and making babies with his daughters.

    Something that relates to anti-abortion statutes with no exception for rape or incest, too.

    It’s not the 1990s AD. It’s the 1990s BC.

    nk (a936d1)

  38. Why is group marriage not permitted? Is there some good reason not to permit it?

    mikeybates (d4fd24)

  39. Where is the constitutional authority for this sort of law? If the Court were in fact to reverse Obergefell, Congress could not rely on Section 5 enforcement power to require states to recognize same-sex marriages. The Court held in the Boerne case that Congress can only enforce the Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, not its own interpretation. And there is no general power to regulate domestic relations given to Congress. Congress could define marriage in federal law, and perhaps require states to recognize out-of-state marriages, but that’s it, I think, if Obergefell were in fact reversed.

    Of course, there are many reasons why Obergefell is not likely to be reversed. That Justice Thomas disagrees with Obergefell and other ‘privacy’ decisions is not news, either. He dissented in many of those cases or has otherwise criticized them in his opinions.

    mikeybates (d4fd24)

  40. Why is group marriage not permitted? Is there some good reason not to permit it?

    mikeybates (d4fd24) — 7/20/2022 @ 8:18 am

    It’s consistent with all of the theories that promote gay marriage if that’s what your asking. I’m not sure proponents of gay marriage would have any good reasons to permit it. It’s just not at the top of their agenda and like the grooming issue if they led with that out of the gate they’d probably not get the support they’re looking for.

    frosty (2a4007)

  41. You know how the story of Sodom and Gomorrah ends, right? With Lot getting drunk and making babies with his daughters.

    Something that relates to anti-abortion statutes with no exception for rape or incest, too.

    nk (a936d1) — 7/20/2022 @ 7:08 am

    That’s not exactly how that story goes. Seems like a well educated person like yourself would know that.

    It doesn’t relate to any sort of anti-abortion issue either since the daughters intended to get pregnant and did so without the consent of Lot.

    frosty (2a4007)

  42. @31. The purpose, as we continually see from the left, is to destroy the family unit and weaken the bonds of society.

    Like an AR-15 in Uvalde… or Highland Park… etc., etc., etc.,

    “Righty-Ohhhh!” – Felix The Cat

    DCSCA (f3c489)

  43. @36, Frosty: “The evidence for this purpose is directly stated in queer theory. Advocates of queer theory would describe this as deconstructing the normative social constructs but once you unpack that you get destroy the family unit and weaken the bonds of society.”

    Or maybe the purpose of gay marriage was to provide civil benefits to gay couples. You should at least prove that most leftists ascribe to radical queer theory to state this is their presumptive goal. Then, if you are unable to show statistically the impact that gay marriage is currently having on the family unit, then you should at minimum describe your theory as to what mechanisms we should be looking for. Are young people suddenly seeing no cultural or economic value in marriage because a gay couple down the street were able to tie the knot? What is the nexus there? The truth is that most people in society no longer see this insidious thread….and many conservatives actually see that broadening the marriage pools actually is a counter to the competing cultural trends.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  44. Where is the constitutional authority for this sort of law?

    Exactly. Gay marriage is a court-ordered construct, unmoored from any constitutional principle. Until United States v. Windsor, it was only legal in 12 states and the District of Columbia. In fact, few states legalized gay marriage prior to Obergefell through the legislative process, most did so as a result of state or federal court decisions. It even failed in a popular vote in California, which was overturned by the courts.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  45. This legislation is as much political theater as the protests at the Supreme Court as outlined by Dana.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  46. AJ_Liberty (ec7f74) — 7/20/2022 @ 10:57 am

    I’m thinking you’re intentionally trying to confuse different questions.

    Then, if you are unable to show statistically the impact that gay marriage is currently having on the family unit

    You are the one trying to switch back and forth between purpose and outcome. As to the outcome, I’ve already said it’s too early to tell.

    You should at least prove that most leftists ascribe to radical queer theory to state this is their presumptive goal.

    I also didn’t say that most leftist ascribe to queer theory. I said two separate things. But it does appear that you’re going to pretend ignorance. Marxism specifically criticizes the traditional family for a number of reasons. This is continued in critical theory, of which queer theory is a subset. I don’t state this as their presumptive goal, they do, and very clearly. For example, BLM had this in their list of goals because they have their roots in marxism.

    I’ll ask again are you unaware of that? It seems like it’s something google could help with.

    What it sounds like is you’re asking me to prove that most leftist ascribe to the basic tenants of leftism. That seems like part of the definition. Are you thinking that most leftist don’t?

    frosty (19e6ad)

  47. Are there 10 Senate Republican votes to pass the House’s gay marriage bill?

    ……..Senate Democrats were skeptical too, as Dick Durbin speculated they might not even bring the House bill up for a vote due to the jam-packed Senate legislative calendar this summer.

    …….Dems are on the right side of a 71 percent issue here; even if the House bill is doomed to be filibustered by the Senate GOP, it’d be useful for the party to have that filibuster on the record. That’s something Democrats can show swing voters as evidence that Republicans are out of step with them on cultural matters and that electing a GOP majority this fall will lead to backsliding on gay rights. In fact, notes Tim Miller, yesterday’s vote has already paid dividends for Dems insofar as Rep. Ted Budd, the GOP nominee for Senate in North Carolina, voted against it. “That is…not a winner in Charlotte, let me tell you,” Miller says. “Will it be the #1 voting issue in NC? No. But it could be part of a broader campaign to demonstrate how radical the GOP is.”

    Chuck Schumer isn’t good at politics but even he’s capable of figuring that out, which is why he announced this morning that he wants a vote on the House bill.
    ………
    He didn’t say there will be a vote on the House bill, do note. …..

    (Sen. Susan) Collins is the only confirmed supporter of the bill among Republicans so far but it’s a cinch that Lisa Murkowski, who needs Democratic voters in her Senate race in Alaska, will come along too. Are there others? There are, it turns out. Rob Portman, who’s retiring in January, is in:
    ……..
    Thom Tillis, who represents purplish North Carolina and won’t face voters again until 2026, is also in:
    ……..
    Even John Thune(!), who may one day succeed McConnell as caucus leader, is taking a look:
    …….
    …….If Tillis is voting yes, his retiring colleague from North Carolina, Richard Burr, has no reason not to do so as well. Roy Blunt of Missouri is also retiring this year and could support the legislation without penalty. Mitt Romney got cover to vote yes last night when the entire Utah Republican House delegation surprisingly voted in favor of the House bill. And Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia tends to vote moderately and isn’t up for reelection for another four years.

    If those four come through, suddenly there are eight Republicans in favor. And there are plausible options to get two more among Bill Cassidy, who voted to convict Trump at his impeachment trial; Pat Toomey, who did likewise and is retiring; and Todd Young, who just won his Senate primary in Indiana running unopposed. All three of them voted for the Senate gun bill, arguably a more contentious issue at this point than gay marriage is.

    And what about Joni Ernst?
    ………
    Cassidy complained yesterday that the House legislation is a “pure messaging bill” since gay marriage is now “obviously settled law.” Eh, not really. Three of the justices who dissented from the Obergefell decision finding that gays have a constitutional right to marry are still on the Court — Thomas, Alito, and John Roberts. They’ve since been joined by the three conservative Trump appointees. …… (T)he Court’s analysis of substantive due process in (Dobbs) undermines Obergefell. If unwritten rights are protected by the Constitution only if they’re deeply rooted in America’s history and traditions, the right of gays to marry is plainly shaky.
    ……..
    …….Since Obergefell was decided in 2015, the standard GOP position is Cassidy’s position, that the issue is now settled and they’d prefer not to have to talk about it, thanks…….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  48. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/merriam-webster-changes-the-definition-of-female/

    Since so many are supportive of destroying language and common sense, here’s more for you to cheer.

    NJRob (512902)

  49. @49, I hope the GOP passes this. It’s just the right thing to do.

    Time123 (717f4c)

  50. > This legislation is as much political theater as the protests at the Supreme Court as outlined by Dana.

    nonsense. the legal reasoning in Dobbs *clearly* threatens Obergefell, because the majority in Obergefell went with Kennedy’s substantive due process reasoning rather than the equal protection reasoning.

    it’s not certain that Obergefell will be overturned, but it’s not unlikely either, and this legislation *if it passes* will nullify much of the effect of overturning Obergefell.

    It’s substantive legislation masquerading as political theater.

    aphrael (aca6a3)

  51. and this legislation *if it passes* will nullify much of the effect of overturning Obergefell.

    Not really, Congress routinely passes laws that may (or may not) be unconstitutional. Time will tell.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  52. @aphrael 7/20/2022 @ 12:29 pm

    Just because SCOTUS is signaling that substantive due process may be on the chopping block, doesn’t mean that such a rule couldn’t ALSO reaffirm the outcomes of the cases via the privileges’ and immunities clause (and elsewhere).

    I think there is a little bit of a theater here, as I think Democrats are looking for any wins at this point, but at the same time, there’s nothing wrong with legislatures enacting a statute of this nature either.

    whembly (b770f8)

  53. Just because SCOTUS is signaling that substantive due process may be on the chopping block, doesn’t mean that such a rule couldn’t ALSO reaffirm the outcomes of the cases via the privileges’ and immunities clause (and elsewhere).

    Why not just return the power back to the states?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  54. > doesn’t mean that such a rule couldn’t ALSO reaffirm the outcomes of the cases via the privileges’ and immunities clause (and elsewhere).

    so we should expect the court to do something they haven’t done in close to a century and a half, rather than passing legislation based on the assumption that they won’t change course in a way that they haven’t signalled wanting to change course on?

    aphrael (4c4719)

  55. > Why not just return the power back to the states?

    First off, an astonishing chunk of federal law depends on marital status, particularly in the tax code, but also in social security benefits, veterans benefits, and to some degree criminal law. There *must* be a rule for the feds to follow in terms of whether or not the feds recognize a marriage.

    DOMA says no gay marriages are federally recognized. Obergefell says they have to be. *Either way*, there must be a federal rule governing federal recognition, and this is just a debate about what that rule should be. (I favor, and have always favored, a rule saying the feds recognize any locally recognized marriage, which is what RFMA enacts).

    Second off, the constitution requires states to give full faith and credit to the public acts of other states, in general. There are exceptions which are created by courts, and there are exceptions which are created by Congress.

    Absent an exception created by and recognized by the federal legislature or the federal courts, any given state is required to recognize a marriage performed in another state.

    Some states will say, hey, this violates the strong public policy of our state, so we shouldn’t have to recognize that marriage performed in another state — but the constitution doesn’t explicitly create that exception, the exception was created by federal courts.

    Furthermore, a state cannot prohibit someone from travelling to another state, so Utah can’t prohibit someone from going to Washington to get married.

    So *absent some federal action*, once one state legally recognizes gay marriages, *every state* must give gay marriages conducted in that state full faith and credit.

    Leaving it to the states is a pleasant sounding myth that is not in alignment with the way the system actually works.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  56. So let me ask you: in the face of a baseline constitutional rule requiring states to give full faith and credit to the public acts of other states, what’s the justification for allowing one state to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in a different state?

    aphrael (4c4719)

  57. > Not really, Congress routinely passes laws that may (or may not) be unconstitutional. Time will tell.

    Have you read this bill?

    I have. It’s *clearly* constitutional.

    It has three major provisions:

    [a] it repeals an act of congress. this is presumptively constitutional.

    [b] it sets a rule saying that, for those parts of federal code for which marriage is an issue, the federal government will recognize a marriage which is recognized by the jurisdiction in which it was performed. this is clearly constitutional.

    [c] it prohibits states from denying full faith and credit to out-of-state marriages on the basis of a number of things including sex and race. Article IV, Section 1 allows Congress the power to prescribe the out-of-state effect of public acts of a given state (and the language used also strongly suggests that congress is basing its power on the fourteenth amendment’s grant of power to congress to enforce the equal protection clause).

    There really is no space in modern legal theory for a constitutional challenge to this act.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  58. @56 I don’t think it’ll happen to be honest, but Thomas has definitely alluded how he’d rule this. He, rightly so, made it his mission to neuter substantive due process because of not only its racist history, but abuse potential.

    @58 First let me just say that I have zero issue with this current bill.

    It’s also a framework that would allow for conceal carry reciprocity across the states too.

    whembly (b770f8)

  59. aphrael,

    see here: Woman says she carried dead fetus for 2 weeks after Texas abortion ban

    AG Paxton is deserving of whatever he gets.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  60. Kevin M, i’m not sure why you’re directing that tragic story at me, but … yes. This is *exactly* what the pro-choice side of this debate predicted would happen. There is no surprise here, this is the expected outcome of Roe being overturned.

    The entire conservative movement over the last fifty years is responsible for this outcome.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  61. …in the face of a baseline constitutional rule requiring states to give full faith and credit to the public acts of other states, what’s the justification for allowing one state to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in a different state?

    Apparently, “if recognizing same-sex marriage would violate the strong “public policy” of the state [perhaps as indicated by a recent constitutional amendment], it need not recognize the out of state marriage.” DOMA made that argument stronger, but did not invent it. It’s one of the reasons that Loving was necessary.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  62. @61

    aphrael,

    see here: Woman says she carried dead fetus for 2 weeks after Texas abortion ban

    AG Paxton is deserving of whatever he gets.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 7/20/2022 @ 2:24 pm

    Kevin, that’s absolutely horse sh!t.

    There has to be more to this story, and we all need to be extra critical at the agenda being pushed by these stories.

    Removing a dead child in utero or stillborn is *NOT* an abortion, regardless of the technique used.

    It’s not even “coded” that way (coding is the medical term that ‘documents’ diagnosis, procedures, services, and equipment into universal medical alphanumeric codes used to facilitate billing and share non-PHI data with the government).

    whembly (b770f8)

  63. Whembly — oh, for sure, Congress clearly has the *power* to require concealed carry reciprocity across all 50 states.

    I think it’s a bad policy decision to do so, but the power is clearly there.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  64. The entire conservative movement over the last fifty years is responsible for this outcome.

    Uh, no, unless you want to accept that the entire pro-choice movement is responsible for abortionists that kill an unexpectedly live late-term former fetus.

    But I am surprised that Paxton hasn’t been slapped down yet.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  65. Uh, no, unless you want to accept that the entire pro-choice movement is responsible for abortionists that kill an unexpectedly live late-term former fetus.

    Oh, wait, the pro-choice movement opposes laws to criminalize the above. So maybe they are responsible.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  66. > Apparently, “if recognizing same-sex marriage would violate the strong “public policy” of the state [perhaps as indicated by a recent constitutional amendment], it need not recognize the out of state marriage.” D

    Correct. This is a doctrine created by the federal judiciary as interpretation of the full faith and credit clause, it is not stated explicitly in the constitution.

    The doctrine is supported by the argument that federalism simply cannot work in a meaningful way without that exception (and there is some merit to that argument), but it’s still a judge-created exception to an explicit constitutional requirement.

    Absent that exception, UT must recognize WA’s marriages regardless of who the marriages are between.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  67. > Uh, no, unless y

    If you do [x] and [z] is an inevitable result of [x], you are responsible for [z].

    The conservative legal movement pushed for half a century to get Roe overturned. *We* told y’all that what would happen is that woman would end up facing exactly the kind of problem you reported earlier — or, to use another example that’s cropped up several times in the last weeks, that women with ectopic pregnancies would have their lives endangered because doctors wouldn’t be able to remove the unviable fetus until the fetus had died — and the conservative legal movement continued to push for the repeal of Roe without pushing for safeguards to reduce the risk of these outcomes.

    So, yes, the conservative legal movement bears part of the responsibility for this.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  68. frosty: “I also didn’t say that most leftist ascribe to queer theory. I said two separate things. But it does appear that you’re going to pretend ignorance”

    Never mind frosty….a colonoscopy sounds more appealing…you must be fun at parties….

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  69. > Apparently, “if recognizing same-sex marriage would violate the strong “public policy” of the state [perhaps as indicated by a recent constitutional amendment],

    Can you elaborate on that?

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  70. “you must be fun at parties….”

    Sounds like something a lawbreaker would say about a cop.

    Colonel Haiku (880714)

  71. @69

    > Uh, no, unless y

    If you do [x] and [z] is an inevitable result of [x], you are responsible for [z].

    The conservative legal movement pushed for half a century to get Roe overturned. *We* told y’all that what would happen is that woman would end up facing exactly the kind of problem you reported earlier — or, to use another example that’s cropped up several times in the last weeks, that women with ectopic pregnancies would have their lives endangered because doctors wouldn’t be able to remove the unviable fetus until the fetus had died — and the conservative legal movement continued to push for the repeal of Roe without pushing for safeguards to reduce the risk of these outcomes.

    So, yes, the conservative legal movement bears part of the responsibility for this.

    aphrael (4c4719) — 7/20/2022 @ 2:37 pm

    Seriously, the issue is misinformation or willful journalistic malpractice.

    Treating ectopic pregnancies or stillborn is NOT an abortion.

    None of the bans (I’ve checked in Texas & Missouri for sure) bans treating these conditions.

    whembly (b770f8)

  72. Whembly — oh, for sure, Congress clearly has the *power* to require concealed carry reciprocity across all 50 states.

    I believe that the Court has the power to assert that the 2nd Amendment requires some form of public carry for most citizens. I doubt they have the power to strike down all regulation, as that word DOES appear in 2A.

    The problem with reciprocity is that different states have different rules. I think that Congress has the power (and should) require that each state accept a carry license from another state as valid in their state. Counties in California do just that, and getting a license in Modoc County is a lot easier than in Los Angeles.

    The “Constitutional carry” movement asserts that all citizens are assumed to be able to carry concealed, absent a showing why not. I think this is wrong, with no attention to how prepared the person is, or their capability for rational judgement. Congress can, and should, impose minimum training and licensing rules.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  73. Sammy — there’s a general understanding in federal law that the public acts of state [x] do not matter in state [y] if those public acts violate the strong public policy of state [y].

    Using a ridiculous example, imagine that California is absolutely opposed as a policy matter to the use of gas powered leaf blowers. Meanwhile, imagine that Texas thinks gas powered leaf blowers are dangerous and require a license to operate. So Texas issues a leaf blower operator license — California doesn’t have to recognize it.

    Most of the law surrounding this grew up in the time before Loving when some states recognized interracial marriages and others did not. There had to be some way to make that *work*, nobody was going to demand that Alabama recognize Wisconsin’s interracial marriages, but some legal justification for it had to be developed.

    aphrael (aca6a3)

  74. > None of the bans (I’ve checked in Texas & Missouri for sure) bans treating these conditions.

    And yet hospitals are directing doctors to wait until the fetus is dead before removing ectopic pregnancies.

    aphrael (aca6a3)

  75. @76

    And yet hospitals are directing doctors to wait until the fetus is dead before removing ectopic pregnancies.

    aphrael (aca6a3) — 7/20/2022 @ 2:51 pm

    aphreal, I’m trying not to pull an “appeal to authority” here because I work in the healthcare industry.

    But, I’m telling you right now, that is 100% bull.

    Whomever is telling you this, or whatever articles you’re reading is 100% bs’ing you.

    When an ectopic pregnancy is discovered, there’s no “waiting until the fetus dies”. Because if they wait, it can literally kill the mother.

    No hospital is directing doctors do to just that. IF they are, that’s a serious malpractice case.

    whembly (b770f8)

  76. The TX Medical Association sent a letter to the TX Medical Board last week complaining that it is happening, and asking the board to act swiftly to stop it.

    The Medical Board has *confirmed that they received the letter*.

    This was widely reported in both the TX state and US national press last week.

    aphrael (aca6a3)

  77. @78 And I’m telling you, those sending the letter to TX Medical Board that this is happening are doing this in bad faith.

    You’ll also start seeing civil cases springing up if that’s truly the case.

    You do NOT wait for the fetus to die in ectopic pregnancy. It’s never a viable pregnancy and is literally a ticking timebomb.

    whembly (b770f8)

  78. aphrael, I’m going to rephrase it.

    An ectopic pregnancy is never a viable pregnancy.

    Treating an ectopic pregnancy has never been treated as if it was an abortion. I was never DOCUMENTED as an abortion nor is it even billed/coded as an abortion.

    Very different things.

    Once it is discovered to be ectopic, the patient is immediately scheduled for treatment, because of the risks involved. The burst can happen anytime between 6 – 16 weeks, and the fetus can still be alive up to the “burst” of the tube if left untreated.

    whembly (b770f8)

  79. Yeah, of course, that’s *exactly* why it’s so horrifying if it’s actually happening.

    I think it’s more likely that the Texas Medical Association is being honest, and that the suits just haven’t come yet, than that the TMA is lying about this. But I can understand why you find it unlikely.

    aphrael (aca6a3)

  80. None of the bans (I’ve checked in Texas & Missouri for sure) bans treating these conditions.

    No, but when the banned procedure is the same as a non-banned procedure (the difference being a fetus), the state (or rather the AG) has made it clear that he will prosecute ambiguous cases as abortion. So, the series of ultrasounds. But even then, he’s not happy because the woman might have taken an abortifacient that caused the miscarriage. So, he’s making it hard.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  81. Part of the problem, too, is that there are activists on both sides creating trouble. But one of those is AG Paxton who has SUED the federal government for insisting that emergencies be treated as such.

    Now, the issue seems to be at what point does it become an emergency — when it’s effing obvious to all concerned that it will become one, or when it later does. Ectopic pregnancies are one example.

    There is also the as-enforced procedure for a post-miscarriage D&C that could easily take weeks. My wife had a miscarriage at about 12 weeks that had her in severe pain almost immediately. If this happened in Texas today, I’d be driving the 800 miles it took to get to a real hospital, and I’d be driving fast.

    This is like saying that we will not treat an aortic aneurysm until it ruptures, and it is piss-poor and stupid.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  82. Never mind frosty….a colonoscopy sounds more appealing…you must be fun at parties….

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74) — 7/20/2022 @ 2:39 pm

    That’s more creative than I expected. Do you think this selective quoting and twisting of what people say might make you appealing at parties? It doesn’t seem like something you’d want to do in person.

    frosty (19e6ad)

  83. God is punishing Texas. If AG Paxton resigned, the heat would let up soon.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  84. “I was never DOCUMENTED as an abortion”

    …and the world is better for it, whembly!

    Colonel Haiku (8b99b0)

  85. I’m glad to see gay marriage getting legislative support, which is the way it should have been from the get-go. In fact, that’s the way it was going until the Supreme Court weighed in.

    norcal (da5491)

  86. One of the interesting and irritating things about this is that *since California never repealed Proposition 8*, if Obergefell falls, gay marriage instantly becomes illegal in California. (I suspect that the CA Supreme Court would hold that all existing marriages were still legal, just like it did after Prop 8 passed, but new marriages would not be).

    The voters of CA would fix this in fairly short order, but — if you imagine that this overturning happens in June of 2023, CA ballot proposition rules mean we wouldn’t even get to *vote on it* until Nov of 2024. Worse yet, a late opinion in July of 2024 would mean we wouldn’t get to vote on it until Nov of 2026.

    I really wish the same politicians who rushed an abortion proposition to the ballot this year would pre-emptively rush a prop 8 repeal *before* the court overturns Obergefell (if it does) rather than waiting.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  87. aphreal, I’m trying not to pull an “appeal to authority” here because I work in the healthcare industry.

    But, I’m telling you right now, that is 100% bull.

    Whomever is telling you this, or whatever articles you’re reading is 100% bs’ing you.

    When an ectopic pregnancy is discovered, there’s no “waiting until the fetus dies”. Because if they wait, it can literally kill the mother.

    No hospital is directing doctors do to just that. IF they are, that’s a serious malpractice case.

    whembly (b770f8) — 7/20/2022 @ 3:01 pm

    Whembly is right.

    The law in texas is not ambiguous on this one either. This is a seriously evil lie that ectopics are being held and risking lives. It’s the worst form of politics. I want names. I want the hospital’s lawyer’s name. I want the doc’s name. Name the people who say they don’t know they can treat ectopics because Roe V Wade was overturned.

    Dustin (f01c00)

  88. aphrael,

    I’m sure Newsom will get on it as soon as he finishes his pissing contest with DeSantis.

    norcal (da5491)

  89. @91. Water beads in his shadow

    [ ] Newsom

    [ ] DeSantis

    [ ] Yes.

    Choose.

    DCSCA (f9d232)

  90. “And yet hospitals are directing doctors to wait until the fetus is dead before removing ectopic pregnancies.”

    where is this information, this is disturbingly wrong

    EPWJ (650a62)

  91. EPWJ, @93 — as i said above, the texas medical association sent a letter to the texas medical board alleging this. i’m having a hard time believing the TMA is lying, although i suppose they could be reacting to lies they are being told.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  92. One of the interesting and irritating things about this is that *since California never repealed Proposition 8*, if Obergefell falls, gay marriage instantly becomes illegal in California. (I suspect that the CA Supreme Court would hold that all existing marriages were still legal, just like it did after Prop 8 passed, but new marriages would not be).

    This is how the Supreme Court could resolve any “reliance” issues-make any ruling overturning Obergefell (and Windsor) prospective only, so existing “marriages” would not be terminated and states and the federal government would be required to accept them as legal, but after a date certain states would be able to either allow or disallow gay “marriages” and would not be required to recognize them.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  93. House passes bill to protect access to birth control

    The vote was 228-195, with eight Republicans joining every Democrat in voting in favor. All 195 “no” votes came from Republicans.

    The Republican members who voted for it were Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, John Katko of New York, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Fred Upton of Michigan, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Maria Salazar of Florida and Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio.

    The bill, called the Right to Contraption (sic) Act, now goes to Senate, where it is unlikely to attract the support of 10 Republicans needed to pass it. The measure would create a statutory right for people to access birth control and protect a range of contraceptive methods, as well as ensure health care providers have a right to provide contraception services to patients.
    …….
    The marriage equality legislation passed with support from all House Democrats and 47 Republicans, including Reps. Elise Stefanik of New York, the No. 3 House Republican, and Tom Emmer of Minnesota, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.
    ………

    More House Republicans favor gay “marriage” than contraception.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  94. it’s really nice to see democrats have taken to legislating from the legislature instead of from the bench

    JF (7f93f3)

  95. Refreshing!

    Colonel Haiku (08b342)

  96. Republicans should demand amendments that would provide religious liberty protections in these showboat bills. For example, provide a statutory exemption to objecting employers in the contraception bill, codifying the 2017 HHS policy. Provide an exemption for photographers, or others who have had speech compelled by nondiscrimination laws, to the gay marriage bill. Etc.

    mikeybates (f125b7)

  97. 90. Dustin (f01c00) — 7/20/2022 @ 5:52 pm

    This is a seriously evil lie that ectopics are being held and risking lives. It’s the worst form of politics. I want names. I want the hospital’s lawyer’s name. I want the doc’s name. Name the people who say they don’t know they can treat ectopics because Roe V Wade was overturned.

    I have a source which gives some names – although not of the woman and not of the doctor or even the city in Texas – and goes back to the Texas law last year.

    Who know what lawyers are advising?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/29/opinion/heartbeat-abortion-bans-savita-izabela.html

    The Lily has reported, a woman in the state who experienced an ectopic pregnancy said she was turned away for care. Ectopic pregnancies, in which a fertilized egg implants outside the uterus, require immediate termination because they endanger the patient’s fertility and her life.

    In theory, terminating an ectopic pregnancy is not banned under the Texas law. But in this case, according to the National Abortion Federation’s hotline director, who spoke with The Lily, doctors were afraid to intercede, and the woman ended up driving at least 12 hours to New Mexico for the procedure.

    More details (from the linked source)

    https://www.thelily.com/the-texas-abortion-ban-has-a-medical-exception-but-some-doctors-worry-its-too-narrow-to-use

    In early September, the National Abortion Federation (NAF) hotline, which coordinates abortion care, received a call from a patient with an ectopic pregnancy in a rural part of South Texas. Rachel Lachenauer, the hotline director, said the woman had no idea what to do: She had been turned away by her regular doctor, she said, who told her that S.B. 8 prevented them from terminating the pregnancy. The woman told Lachenauer the doctor was “nervous” about getting sued, Lachenauer recalled.

    Lachenauer and another NAF staff member, who worked on her case and confirmed the story, told the patient to go to the closest emergency room right away. Shortly after that, Lachenauer said, the patient called back: When she called the hospital, she told NAF, they said she would have to seek care in another state.

    “We’re pretty flabbergasted at this point,” Lachenauer said. “We are a remote call center. We can’t go and pick her up.” The whole time, Lachenauer said, she was consulting with NAF’s medical team, who said the patient was in immediate danger.

    The patient ended up driving between 12 and 15 hours to a hospital in New Mexico, Lachenauer said, where she was able to terminate her pregnancy.

    That kind of delay could cost patients their lives, said Alan Peaceman, a maternal fetal medicine professor at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine who specializes in high-risk cases and fetal anomalies.

    So you can see why people were skeptical about the Ohio -> Indiana 10 year old’s pregnancy case.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  98. Then he argues this:

    While most doctors would classify an ectopic pregnancy as a medical emergency, Peaceman said, there is another class of high-risk pregnancies where the potential dangers are less clear. Occasionally, Peaceman said, a patient will have a preexisting condition, such as pulmonary hypertension or certain heart conditions, where their pregnancy brings “some level of risk” to their health, situations unlikely to be covered by the Texas medical exception. Some of these patients would have chosen to continue their pregnancies and assume the risk, regardless of S.B. 8, Peaceman said. Others would have chosen to terminate.

    Patients with these types of preexisting conditions often make it through their pregnancies safely, Peaceman said, especially when they have access to specialists and regular, high-quality medical care. He worries about low-income patients in more rural areas, he said, who will not be monitored as closely as they should be.

    “There is a significant potential for some of these women to have major complications and potentially die who might otherwise have terminated their pregnancy,” he said.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  99. > In early September,

    ???

    aphrael (4c4719)

  100. > In early September,

    ???

    aphrael (4c4719) — 7/21/2022 @ 2:47 pm

    September 2021.

    Texas passed an anti-abortion law, which effectively outlawed abortions after six weeks, even while Roe v Wade stood because there was no way to get it too a court and they didn’t know how the Supreme Court would rukle on an upcoming abortion case. We discussed this here.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Heartbeat_Act

    . The law took effect on September 1, 2021, after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request for emergency relief from Texas abortion providers.

    See also:

    https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/10/texas-abortion-law-ban-enforcement

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  101. Republicans Should Reject the Gay-Marriage Bill
    ………
    ………The bill raises four distinct questions for federal legislators. Is the judicially imposed definition better or wiser than the older one? If so, should the federal government insist that states adhere to it? Have the downsides of this specific legislation received sufficient consideration? And given that the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges continues to have the force of law, does passing the bill serve any good purpose? The answer to all four questions is no.
    ………
    ……..(Marriage) rests instead on the biological realities of our sexual dimorphism and complementarity, the economic needs of mothers and children, and the long train of human history, experience, and tradition…….
    ……..
    All of these are reasons for governments to adhere to the older view of marriage, and reasons for the federal government to allow them to do so. Allowing states to reach different conclusions on this issue would not cause chaos or prove unworkable, as it did not in the years just before 2015. Congress need not legislate a national policy.

    And there are still unanswered questions about the Respect for Marriage Act. Its promise of total reciprocity among states, without exception or limitation, suggests the effacement of laws that regulate the age of consent for marriage and prohibitions against consanguineous marriages. Have proponents scrutinized it sufficiently?
    ……..
    What, then, is the point of this bill? It appears to be to demoralize social conservatives, to cast the opponents of same-sex marriage as a dwindling band of bigots. Republican politicians should not go along with it.
    #########

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

Leave a Reply


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1646 secs.