How much investigation? How much protection?

First, unless the Congress enacts a law giving the unborn the protections of legal status, states can have no power to regulate abortion as a medical procedure. If they were to enact protection, then the question becomes "when?" See https://datayze.com/miscarriage-chart

Here is the data by likelihood of miscarriage - meaning that at this point, pregnancies must be registered and all deaths and terminations (including post-stillbirth) investigated with the mother liable for ordering manslaughter. Note that if one kind of contract killing is exempt, contract killing cannot be a crime.

3 weeks gestation (around 5 after last period), 30%

4 weeks, 25%

5 weeks, 19%

6 weeks, 5 days, 10%

8 weeks, 5.2%

10 weeks, 2.5%

14 weeks, 1% - meaning that 1 out of every 11 losses is miscarriage, 10 are abortion.

16 weeks, 0.5%

19 weeks, 0.1%

20 weeks, 0%

Then the question is survivability after birth. See https://www.healthline.com/health/baby/premature-baby-survival-rate#28-weeks

23 weeks and before, more than half die. Those that don't will be damaged for life.

24 weeks, 60% survive. Of those that do, 40% have permanent injury. Survival requires NICU support. Note that morally, such support is considered extraordinary and therefore morally optional.

26 weeks, 68% (between 60 and 70), 20% have health problems for life.

28 weeks, between 80% and 90% survive and with great care between 94% and 98% with 10% having lingering health problems

30 to 32 weeks, 99% survive. Third trimester starts here. These children are late preterm. After 33% weeks, 100% survive. The law considers all such children as people.

Where do I stand? I want no parent grieving a miscarriage to be interviewed by any coroner, detective or over-zealous pro-life prosecutor who graduated from Ave Maria or Liberty University Law School looking for bona fides for a congressional campaign. That is 20 weeks. After 20 weeks, only induced labor and fetal hospice would be allowed, no slicing and dicing.

Regardless, no child who is sure to be stillborn has a right to life at the expense of his or her mother's health and should be taken as soon as possible for that reason.

Of course, if one of the 5 Alito justices changes their mind, any kind of abortion regulation must come with full support of Build Back Better as a pro-life issue, except that the child tax credit must be high enough so that child support is never required and the minimum wage must be high enough so that no one will live only on their child credits. Work must pay. 

Daycare must also be free to employees, although Congress should pass tax credits for employers to offset these costs - at least partially.

Anyone with under 10th grade literacy in English should have only one job - gaining literacy at this level - payable at the minimum wage with child credits. That includes ESL students, who must be eligible regardless of immigration status.

To be considered pro-life, supporting these issues must be considered mandatory by the Catholic bishops. See the other article from today about the current pro-life Putinist agenda.

Abortion, Men's Bodies and the GOP

I have written extensively on how the anti-choice movement is really about controlling female sexuality - their bodies - rather than protecting life, because they are unwilling to enact a decent minimum wage and child tax credit. To be adequate, such a credit would be high enough to end the need for child support.

This also affects men's sexuality and their bodies, as well as the economic rights of women. Unless a man is willing to work, they don't want him to have sex. If a man fathers a child, they insist he work. Indeed, the child support system will jail him if he does not.

They want him to work at the lowest possible wage. They would not even have a minimum wage if they thought they had the votes. They certainly do not want him to have the right to collective bargaining or rights in the workplace.

Their preference is no government interference in the workplace. As the capitalist workplace is authoritarian, men must comply or their children will starve. If he demands union representation, the capitalists will fire and blacklist him. As long as references are required and checked, blacklisting is a real thing.

Because they would force men to work, they prefer women not work. Working women would their patriarchy.

When men do work, capitalists want the workers to accept the wage offered or what management can negotiate. If the worker is creative, the authoritarian capitalist insists that, by being paid, the worker gives up all intellectual property to the owner or shareholders. They buy the minds, as well as the bodies, of both women and men.

In practice, most. capitalist shareholders receive a "normal profit.". This means that the return shareholder can expect is just high enough to keep them from selling their shares at a loss. 

CEO compensation includes abnormal shareholding, including stock options, celebrity level salaries and golden parachutes. Whatever they can get directors, usually their cronies, to agree to. Any cost savings become bonuses.

What does all this authoritarian compensation buy? Republican and Neoliberal elected officials and the masses in the pro-life/pro-Trump (pro-Putin) movement.

So, it is not only women's bodies the pro-life movement wants control over. They want men's bodies, minds and souls and the soul of the nation. They want good moral behavior in the bedroom and compliance at work. The pro-life movement is national authoritarianism.

If you, dear reader, are pro-life and disagree that you want authoritarianism, then support Build Back Better, raise the minimum wage and support union rights. 

Of course, quite a few of you agree with the authoritarian capitalist world I have described. I have spoken online  with enough if you to know this. Admit it, so that the nation knows what it is voting for in November. Own your vision and make sure your voters know what they are getting (which is essentially Putinism).

Killing Roe in order to save it

The viability standard made sense before the advancement of science. Chapter IX of Roe hinted, but did not state, that because Congress had not acted to define a start of legal status, the Court had to make one up that matched the language of the 14th Amendment (which was viability).

The current majority is not amused. They seem willing to punt to the states. If the GOP knew what was good for them in November, they would join the Democrats in drawing a line between viability and some earlier point.

The Republicans think inflation is their ticket to ride. Between Jackson v. Dobbs and the Insurrection (followed by expulsions), this is not the case. As it is, if they obstruct expulsions when they come to the floor, they will lose.

The only other options are to hope that Roberts can or has convinced Gorsuch or others to reject Alito's argument or for advocart's to publicly make an argument that forecloses bringing back Plessy's view of state power (saying so explicitly) and offers an earlier gestational age based in science. Briefs can no longer be submitted or arguments heard, so the people must speak in a way that meets majority objections to viability, rather than a demand for rights.

While this move opens the door to a fetal heartbeat standard, assisted viability or fetal reaction to pain are more likely standards (20 weeks). 

Frankly, even though the fetus cannot appreciate the pain of abortion, it still reacts the procedure that for some, shocks the conscience. That is the kind of language that sounds like what a final opinion of the Court would say. At the very least, it could be used to limit abortions up to assisted viability to induction.

Another such phrase is to call the Mississippi law, as well as other attempts to reverse federal supremacy on abortion and civil rights in general, pernicious attempts to restore the logic of Plessy, overturning the entire body of civil rights precedence - regardless of assurances in the Alito dissent.

In other words, we need to kill Roe in order to save it - and the entire body of civil rights law. This is the only path that I can see to counter Alito effectively.

The Alito draft and a long-term way forward

The irony of the Alito draft on Jackson Women's Health v/ Dobbs is that, while citing the fact that Plessy v. Ferguson is an example of a Supreme Court opinion where the Court changed its mind, his opinion would essentially start the process of bringing Plessy era jurisprudence back to life. The whole point of Plessy was not separation of the races, but the judicial theory that the various states are competent to judge their own compliance with the 14th Amendment.

Paging Franz Kafka! Paging George Orwell!

A year ago, I suggested text for just such an opinion as the Alito draft. You can read it at http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2021/06/text-for-state-in-19-1392-dobbs-v.html

For years, both sides of the abortion debate have used it for political advantage. There are now generations of people who are committed to the arguments. There are volunteer lists and funding streams on each side in every state.

It is time to end this. Indeed, Justice Alito has given us no choice. Even if Justice Gorsuch saves the conservatives on the court from themselves, there is no going back from the current brink. We must find a way toward a long term solution. 

Our polity must be disinfected. 

In 2009, the Catholic bishops attacked the mythical Freedom of Choice Act, even though President Obama had offered during the second debate to sit down and work out how to deal with the problem of late term abortion. If Secretary Clinton had taken the same tack, rather than defending partial birth abortion (I still think Russia hacked her briefing book), Trump would not have been President and the old status quo could continue.

Dobbs has changed that. Combined with the emerging truth on the Insurrection and Trump's involvement with Putin on Ukraine (he was likely bribed through donations from Moscow to his Super PAC through Lev, Igor and Rudy), the GOP may just cease to exist. The conservative party in the U.S. has failed twice before (both the Federalists and the Whigs). 

2022 will not be a good year for the GOP. No amount of capitalist sabotage can save it either.

The Freedom of Choice Act may be passed this year, for real this time, if the Alito opinion in any form becomes the Opinion of the Court. If it is not passed before the election, it will be passed with large majorities in 2023.

The only play the GOP can make to stay alive is to pass some form of FOCA on a bipartisan basis. It must also punish the leaders of the Insurrection within its congressional caucus, while those who voted with them in the wee hours of January 7th accept censure.

In 2023, Republicans will have to beg for bipartisanship. The Democrats should remember that they will one day be in the minority and should welcome some kind of joint solution. The reason there are so many pro-life judges on the bench - including the 5th Circuit that let Jackson pass, was the Dems flirtation with the nuclear option and with ending the filibuster.  

Every time the Dems want to change the rules to pass the current agenda, the Republicans use those rules to do permanent harm. Insanity is doing the same thing year after year and expecting a different result.

What would a bipartisan solution look like? Here are some elements.

Require that the only legal form of abortion after 20 weeks is induction. No one has an abortion after this point that is not medically necessary. Demonizing women who do makes no friends for the pro-life movement. Fetal hospice is much preferable to the more gruesome methods, like D&C and D&X.

Agree that only Congress can set the boundary where the child is protected under law. The United States tried to deal with slavery by letting states chose to be slave or free. It did not work out well. Sending the matter back to the states would repeat this error. Alito's position is not only bad for women, it is bad for national harmony. It would make the existing divisions worse.

Terminations before a congressional boundary are forever a matter between a woman and her doctor. The logic of this is that, if the child is not legally recognized, the right of privacy must be respected. Privacy is not confidentiality. It is the right to be left alone by the prying moral mob.

After the boundary, abortion would have to be considered homicide - not simply a prohibited medical procedure. This means that all involved, including the mother, have legal liability. After that boundary, pregnancies would have to be registered - all pregnancies - just as we register stillbirth and live births.

Having to do this should give the pro-life side pause. To actually treat a pregnancy as a person will affect every pregnant woman and her family. Likewise, all lost pregnancies after the boundary would have to be investigated as a homicide - even if that is only a mandatory chart review by the coroner. This may extend to in-person investigation by law enforcement. Such investigation shocks the conscience as abuse of any woman or couple which has suffered a miscarriage.

Calling a fetus a person has consequences. To really do so is not easy and to not do so thwarts the argument that legal protection must be provided to the unborn.

So what is left?

Between two-thirds and three-fourths of abortions are done because of the economic or life impacts on the mother and her family or partner. To stop abortion (and even demolish its infrastructure), these causes must be ameliorated. This means higher wages, higher (refundable) child tax credits, better childcare and paid family medical leave.

For late term Down's Syndrome Children, this means free respite care for parents and lifetime disability income and case management services for the children - and that income must be adequate. In other words, alleviate the fears that families have - fears that are quite reasonable.

All of this is best enacted this year. Indeed, the President needs to shame the bishops into calling economic justice for families a pro-life issue. No one deserves a perfect pro-life record if they do not take care of families (not just helping out with pregnancies and offering adoptions to compliant Catholic couples).

To not provide such subsidies AND ban abortion is not only shameful, it is evil. Doing so is considered a sin that cries to Heaven for Vengeance. Indeed, not funding families adequately is identified in Catholic Doctrine as intrinsically evil (look it up).

There are many Republicans among the working poor. They need the help. Helping them should be bipartisan. This is the only way to get it done and the only way the GOP can survive in its present form.

Russia Today

The Russian invasion is, shall we say, behind schedule. Again, Ukraine is fighting back.

Quite correctly, Russian forces who are bombing areas outside the battle zone in the East are being targeted. This targeting should include forces outside of Ukraine. The best defense is a good offense. The Russian forces bombing non-combat zones to damage Ukrainian logistics are fair game - as are any supply lines within Russia.

The willingness to engage in this matter will be the stick to go with the carrot of possible truce negotiations. If the Russians can bomb Ukraine with impunity, they will continue to bomb Ukraine. If they are bombed in the same way, perhaps the zone of conflict could be limited to eastern Ukraine. Until such limit are in place, a negotiated settlement, especially one which cedes any part of that zone to Russia must be off the table. 

Until the terror bombing outside the battle zone stops, Russia's claim of limited war aims must be called out as a lie. In any war without such limits, Russia is (and should be) at risk of losing its entire army within and around the theater of battle - which if reports are right - is most of their available forces.

If the Russian strategic forces are in as bad a shape as its invasion force, America and NATO have nothing to fear from increasing Ukrainian pressure. Indeed, if Ukraine kills Russia's army and Putin is removed from power for initiating this fiasco, Russian nuclear forces should be negotiated away before someone realizes we can actually simply take them away.

The sad fact of the matter for Russia is that it has nothing that anyone wants. No one will ever want to invade Russia. Their fear of invasion can best be described as delusions of grandeur. If it leaves the world alone, the world will leave it alone, unless it wishes development assistance like any other Third World backwater.

Given the chance (and they have the chance), Ukraine could probably liberate Russia from its dictator. Again, it has no interest in doing so. The nesting dolls are all broken. No one wants to open them.