Under his eye... Roe v. Wade

Jump to Last Post 1-26 of 26 discussions (255 posts)
  1. IslandBites profile image90
    IslandBitesposted 22 months ago

    The Supreme Court is poised to overturn the landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that protects a federal right to abortion, according to a draft majority opinion published Monday evening by Politico.

    The draft, described as a 67-page document, was circulated in early February, according to Politico. The final opinion has not been released and votes can change before opinions are formally released.

    In the draft opinion, Alito writes that Roe "must be overruled."

    "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision," Alito wrote. He said that Roe was "egregiously wrong from the start" and that its reasoning was "exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences."

    He added, "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's representatives."

    "That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand," he said, according to the draft.

    Welcome to Gilead?

    1. GA Anderson profile image89
      GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      This was an unexpected shocker for me, I support a woman's choice. Now I wait to see if the ruling was legally and constitutionally correct—even if I don't like the results a correct decision brings.

      GA

      1. IslandBites profile image90
        IslandBitesposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        A shocker? Really?

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          No surprise here. Mr Trump's 3 justices we're chosen with this goal in mind.   We have a fundamental problem when 60% of Americans believe women should have access to safe legal abortion yet the court is not reflecting the will of the people.
          There will be a backlash in this country like we've never seen.  Also, I believe big business will play a role. Following Disney's example and will speak out loudly.  If you look at the language of this leaked opinion, it is obvious that dismantling Roe v Wade could imperil other core, basic human rights. Gay marriage, access to birth control and fertility treatments we'll all be next in line to be weakened or overruled. Abortion rights are rooted in the same implied constitutional right to privacy that is the foundation for other intimate personal decisions Americans now take for granted. 
          Look for states to immediately enact legislation to curb LGBTQ rights.  My guess is that Governor DeSantis already has it written up and waiting.

          1. Readmikenow profile image94
            Readmikenowposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            "We have a fundamental problem when 60% of Americans believe women should have access to safe legal abortion yet the court is not reflecting the will of the people."

            If it is overturned, then abortion rights will be determined by individual states.  That is when the true "will of the people" will be determined.  Abortion rights will be determined by elected representatives from each state.

            Doesn't that give people a stronger vote in what they believe?

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              Republican-led state legislatures have already moved to limit abortion access and others are set  to enforce restrictive laws that have remained unenforced since Roe was passed. In total, an analysis by the Guttmacher Institute finds that 23 states have laws aiming to limit abortion access, including some states that have multiple provisions in place.

              States including Michigan, Wisconsin and West Virginia had abortion restrictions before the Roe ruling that have never been removed. Others have approved near-total bans or laws prohibiting abortion after a certain number of weeks but many of them have been blocked by courts,  the obliteration of Roe will now make way for these unenforced laws and trigger laws to come to fruition.   My own state of Arkansas has a trigger law which will go into effect. Do you think we're voting here about it? Nope. Abortion will be illegal in the last remaining clinical disappear the second Roe is overturned.

              1. Readmikenow profile image94
                Readmikenowposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                So, now let me ask you this.

                Are a state's elected officials a measure of how a state's population feels about a particular issue? 

                Are they representative of the will of the people?

                1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  Almost all countries now consult voters on major national issues from time to time, something the U.S. has never done, even though opinion surveys show that two-thirds of Americans would like to vote on important issues.

                  There should be special referendum votes. Public debate followed by an opportunity for voters to decide the issue directly would produce an outcome that reflects the prevailing view of the community.  This is a possibility.

                  Preferably, I would like to see Congress codify Roe.

                  1. Readmikenow profile image94
                    Readmikenowposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                    Well, I don't think the United States will turn away from being a representative republic any time soon.  So, you are kind of stuck it.

                    Pro choice people are going to have to do what pro life people do.  Recruit and support people who will support your view and work to get them elected.

                    That's how it works in our country.

                  2. GA Anderson profile image89
                    GA Andersonposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                    I don't think this decision is one for a referendum on what the public wants. I think it is one of Constitutional law. How much of the public is qualified to address that issue?

                    GA

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            "We have a fundamental problem when 60% of Americans believe women should have access to safe legal abortion yet the court is not reflecting the will of the people."

            It seems a common misconception that the courts should render judgements based on what they perceive the people want rather than what the law is.  The Constitution, in the case of the SCOTUS.

            I am unfamiliar with the legal theory behind RvsW, and haven't seen any theory of the possible decision this time around, but have to assume it is valid until such time as it is explained. 

            I will say, though, that to expand a decision based on whether murder of a fetus is acceptable under Constitutional law into denying access to birth control or fertility treatments, as well as gay marriage or other LGBTQ rights, is over the top.  The one has zero to do with the other.  Nor is it reasonable to claim, without any proof whatsoever, that the latest 3 judges were chosen with the intent to overthrow established law.

            Unfortunately it is also true that our courts, including SCOTUS, all too often have a record of rendering verdicts based on personal morality rather than law.  I recall one opinion from Ruth Ginsberg that boiled down to "I think the country should do this (I forget the specific case) and will therefore vote that way regardless of what the law is".  Such decisions are sad, and give a lie to our entire justice system.

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              "denying access to birth control or fertility treatments, as well as gay marriage or other LGBTQ rights, is over the top.  The one has zero to do with the other."

              In the 1973  case Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court applied the core constitutional principle of "privacy" and liberty to a woman's ability to terminate a pregnancy. In Roe, the Court held that the constitutional right to privacy includes a woman's right to decide whether to have an abortion.

              The court is signaling that a Roe will be overturned on the basis of privacy rights.
              The justices ruled that while abortion is not specifically referenced in the constitution, it is protected under rights to privacy that are themselves protected under the constitution’s guarantees of liberty, particularly within the ninth and 14th amendments, the latter of which prohibits a state from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” It has nothing to do with "murder"

              I have no illusion that abortion will be first in a series of privacy rights dominoes to fall. Including those I mentioned.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                Based on your explanation, the court simply said that the murder of an unborn child (just ask the pro-lifers if it is murder) required privacy of the woman involved. 

                In a way, this is in line with what I understood - the court never made any ruling on whether the death of a fetus was killing a child or not - they neatly side stepped that question by ignoring it.  Which is why we are now where we are.

                But privacy has something to do with publicly announcing the marriage of a same sex couple?  Or LGBTQ rights?  I don't follow that argument at all.  I have never heard anything of the sort, although gay sex (within the privacy of the home) does.

                1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                  Abortion rights are rooted in the same implied constitutional right to privacy that is the foundation for other intimate personal decisions. Gay rights, contraceptives, certain fertility treatments and even interracial marriage are imperiled because they’re all rooted in that right to privacy.

            2. Kathleen Cochran profile image78
              Kathleen Cochranposted 20 months agoin reply to this

              Please cite the case re: Ruth Ginsberg. That is too vague a reference to just throw out there. But otherwise, who would have ever thought it! I agree with you.

          3. Kathleen Cochran profile image78
            Kathleen Cochranposted 20 months agoin reply to this

            Please remember two of those justices were the purview of Democrat Presidents but for McConnell's obstruction. You reap what you sow republicans. Just like everybody else. And three of your justices are in their 70s.
            And all those evangelicals who voted for "the greater good" inspite of who Trump was/is? Keep an eye on the January 6 hearings. Just how much can you justify?

        2. GA Anderson profile image89
          GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          Yep, a shocker. This precedent seemed solidly placed. Whether it was rightly set, or not, is a separate issue. That this court should be so explicit that its setting was wrong is one part of the shock and that the draft was leaked is the other part.

          Maybe the leak is the worst 'wrong'. It violates the Court's 'circle of trust'.

          GA

          1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            During his confirmation to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh convinced Sen. Susan Collins that he thought a woman’s right to an abortion was “settled law,” calling the court cases affirming it “precedent on precedent” that could not be casually overturned.
            You think some are feeling a little misled?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              They probably are, particularly if they believe that SCOTUS should render decisions based on political bias.

              On the other hand, that "could not be casually overturned" phrase is telling; if new thoughts are introduced indicating that RvW should never have happened, and are quite strong, then that "casually" could easily become "required".  Unfortunately, our courts all too often make decisions based on the judge's personal opinion of right and wrong, morality, and where the country should go rather than on law.  They legislate from the bench all too often, and if current justices find that other justices, years ago, did just than then it should probably be overturned.  That kind of decision is extremely harmful to the country and is in violation of every concept about the Constitution and our justice system as a whole.

            2. Sharlee01 profile image81
              Sharlee01posted 21 months agoin reply to this

              Faye, just to be fair --- we do not know how a  final vote would go or if there will be a vote. We are thus far speculating.

              The Supreme Court issued a response to the report of a draft opinion that, if published, would overturn Roe v. Wade, with Chief Justice John Roberts strongly condemning the leak to the press.

              In a brief message, the court acknowledged that the leaked document is indeed real while noting that it is just a draft and that the court has not issued a final decision on the matter.

              (COULD WE BE GETTING AHEAD OF OURSELVES?)

              "Justices circulate draft opinions internally as a routine and essential part of the Court’s confidential deliberative work. Although the document described in yesterday’s reports is authentic, it DOES NOT represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case," the court said.

              Roberts, in his own statement accompanying the court's press release, announced that he has called upon the Marshal of the Court to investigate the situation and find the source who leaked the document to Politico. Roberts also spoke out against the notion that the leak could succeed as a political maneuver to influence the outcome of the case.

              "To the extent, this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected
              in any way," Roberts said.

              1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
                Fayetteville Fayeposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                I don't hold out much hope for Roe.  I never have. The push to overturn has greatly increased over the past decade. In reading the leaked opinion, They don't just overturn Roe, They blow it up and set it on fire while opening the door and setting out the welcome mat for a slew of other "privacy" related cases.  The next to be challenged?  Griswold v. Connecticut. Overturning will allow government to restrict contraception. 
                I'm very concerned over this direction our country has taken.  Tyranny by the minority.  Personally I can't see how they would get from the  language in the leaked brief to not overturning.  There is no path in my opinion. I suppose we now know very clearly where Alito stands though.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image81
                  Sharlee01posted 21 months agoin reply to this

                  I am hoping that Roe is left in place as is. It has been law for 50 years, and  I see it as somewhat hypocritical to do away with it at this point.

                  I did read the document, and his view is clear. However, Roberts claims that it is customary for Justices to circulate draft opinions internally as a routine part of the Court’s confidential deliberative work.   Although the document has been authenticated can we be sure it represents a decision as of yet?

                  I just read a statement from Sen. Collins she said that both judges had assured her at the time that they believed Roe v. Wade was
                  “settled law.” 

                  Hard to tell where this will end up. The Republicans on the Supreme Court are very much Constitutionalists.

                  I am very much disappointed to see a leak come out of the SC. It lessens my confidence that it can remain non-political I mean we really have no idea who leaked that document.

                  1. Credence2 profile image79
                    Credence2posted 21 months agoin reply to this

                    Breaking up Roe will be the equivalent to the free state verses the slave state controversy of a bygone era. This is going to stir up quite a cauldron between left and right and I am certainly going to get the popcorn and watch the show since me and my immediate concerns are not on center stage, here.

            3. GA Anderson profile image89
              GA Andersonposted 21 months agoin reply to this

              I think all of us, including your "some", need more information.

              GA

    2. peterstreep profile image80
      peterstreepposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      So the US is no different than Iran.
      Abortion is Illegal and with an active death penalty.

      How can the US, so progressive in many ways, be so backward in others?

      1. abwilliams profile image67
        abwilliamsposted 21 months agoin reply to this

        Not sure how much of a voice the people of Iran have - but this opinion, if followed through on, will return the matter of abortion back to the American people, where it should have always been. State by state by state...

        Honestly, can you see New York or Oregon making abortion illegal? Hardly, they allow abortion when the baby is fully developed, at full term!
        So, you are right about that, the death penalty is carried out many, many times per day, here in America.

        1. peterstreep profile image80
          peterstreepposted 21 months agoin reply to this

          It will not return the matter of abortion to the people. If it was truly so, the only and only person to decide to do an abortion is the woman herself.

          1. abwilliams profile image67
            abwilliamsposted 21 months agoin reply to this

            We have Representative Government here.

            1. peterstreep profile image80
              peterstreepposted 21 months agoin reply to this

              Abortion should be a private decision with no interference from the government.
              I thought Americans were against the government organizing their lives all the time.

              1. Readmikenow profile image94
                Readmikenowposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                There are many who view this as murdering an unborn child.
                Murder is an issue that involves all of society.
                This is why many Americans believe there should be laws against it.

                1. peterstreep profile image80
                  peterstreepposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes, I know. I was just making an extreme argument.
                  But I believe that in the end, it's "woman's business". And women should vote over it and not men.
                  As a woman has to bear the child and give labour. A man can simply walk away when a woman is pregnant.
                  A woman can become pregnant because of rape for instance.

                  In the end, the women should be the main responsible person. but the law is made by men.
                  I don't think men would like it either if women should make laws about circumcision for example.
                  Or to be more general a lot of men have problems with women in authoritative positions in the first place.

                  So I think if there needs to be a law. And of course, you need one. It should be made by women.

                  1. Readmikenow profile image94
                    Readmikenowposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                    "In the end, the women should be the main responsible person. but the law is made by men."

                    There are many laws in the United States that force men to provide for their children no matter what their relationship with the mother.  Money for child support can be taken right out of a person's paycheck.  Their tax return can be taken and given to the mother of the child and more. Some men can be put in jail for lack of paying child support.  If you are behind in your child support, you may not be able to take out a loan and more. 

                    These were laws passed by both men and women.

                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                    Only women should have a say in the killing and disposal of a man's child?  I would have to disagree with that one.  In addition, we tend to treat children as society's responsibility in the final analysis - only women should have a say in that, too?

              2. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
                Fayetteville Fayeposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                Right wing extremism is growing in our country.  The Republican party has split into two factions. The Trump led faction is becoming more and more radical, steering this country right toward authoritarianism. 
                They are going whole hog into culture-war topics. They’re pushing total bans on abortion (with no exceptions), and railing against the alleged “woke indoctrination” of public-school students on matters of gender, sexuality, and race. They are playing to an ultra conservative Christian base.
                This faction of the party has used divisive polarization to build a coalition of the radically aggrieved.  Also, we have a growing number of citizens who actually favor an authoritarian government. Fears are continually stoked that the traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that they may have to use force to save it. 
                Democracy, in this country feels like it's coming apart at the seams.
                As Roe falls, they will certainly and swiftly begin to attack other privacy rights.

                1. abwilliams profile image67
                  abwilliamsposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                  It's not right wingers going crazy and destroying property, as I type.....it's a sad day when people get crazed over attempts to save more lives.

                  1. peterstreep profile image80
                    peterstreepposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                    Sometimes it's wiser to not choose for life. A baby born with an open back, or other deformations that were already seen in the womb.
                    A women raped by her father or brother.

                    A cow has more conscience than a 9-week-old fetus. Still, millions of cows are killed every day and eaten.

                2. Readmikenow profile image94
                  Readmikenowposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                  "The Trump led faction is becoming more and more radical, steering this country right toward authoritarianism."

                  THAT is funny.  Good one.

                  "They are going whole hog into culture-war topics. They’re pushing total bans on abortion (with no exceptions), and railing against the alleged “woke indoctrination” of public-school students on matters of gender, sexuality, and race. They are playing to an ultra conservative Christian base."

                  So?  Guess what?  This Christian base is made up of millions of law-abiding American citizens who are employed, served their country, and are entitled to an opinion and to participate in the political process.

                  I don't think you comprehend the concept of "authoritarianism."  That is something American citizens in Democrat states experienced during the pandemic. 

                  "Also, we have a growing number of citizens who actually favor an authoritarian government."

                  Yeah, but I would say that is on the left.  People who want the government to have more in the say of how a parent raises their child than the parent.  Those who wanted to force people to put a drug into their body even if they didn't want it.  I could go on, but the left is solidly in the corner of authoritarian government.

              3. abwilliams profile image67
                abwilliamsposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                As in abortion on demand, no limits, no restrictions? No protection for the youngest and most vulnerable?  Should we just do away with all law while we are at it?

                1. peterstreep profile image80
                  peterstreepposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                  No I said it here in the extreme to make a point about people who are always complaining that the government is taking over their lives.
                  You do need a law. But to be honest, I don't think that men should be the persons to make it. But women.

                  And children  (the youngest and most vulnerable) have nothing to do with it. We are talking about zygotes or embryos not school children.

                  1. abwilliams profile image67
                    abwilliamsposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                    You keep telling yourself that Peter.

                  2. gmwilliams profile image85
                    gmwilliamsposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                    THANK YOU, PETER.

      2. GA Anderson profile image89
        GA Andersonposted 21 months agoin reply to this

        A lot of adjectives come to mind when trying to describe your response, but the simplest is that it is wrong because there is no comparison beyond the outcome. It is the path to that outcome that is important.

        In Iran, it is a theocracy that decides, and despite this misaddressed outcry about our Court's duty and arena of authority, in the U.S. it is the people that decide.

        The Court didn't decide that abortion is illegal, as the theocracy of Iran does, it decided that the grounds that it was judged legal are flawed.
        Besides yours being such a judgmental and prejudiced statement, it is one that is formed by a myopic view that what you think is what everyone else should think. That what you, (a generic "you"), want to be, or think is, right is all that is needed for something to be right.

        Apparently, the mechanics of the Roe decision have been judged to be flawed and because that disagrees with the "want" of progressives, (a shorthand generalization), then the Court is wrong and supports a 'barefoot & pregnant' mentality.

        When someone with a different perspective is confronted with such statements it is easy to understand their resistance to your 'progressiveness'. Particularly when their perspective comes from a position that 'your' view is nothing more than legalized murder.

        GA

        1. peterstreep profile image80
          peterstreepposted 21 months agoin reply to this

          Ah yes GA of course it's a provocative "tweet" Trump couldn't have done it better.
          But abortion is a highly religious theme, just so in Iran.
          And the death penalty is seen as a barbaric sentence in Europe, no European country has it.
          In both countries Iran and the US religion and politics are closely connected. It's unthinkable for the US to have an atheist as a president at the moment.
          Christianity is a huge power in US politics, which shows with this abortion law going to courts. It's pure religious motivation and power struggles.
          Same as in Iran or Israel -


          Of course, there are many differences between Iran and the US - freedom of speech is one.
          That's why I said as well: How can the US, progressive in so many ways, be so backward?
          And I did not mean the word progressive in the political sense. but in the sense of being a leader in science, arts, culture, innovation, and so many other things.

      3. Sharlee01 profile image81
        Sharlee01posted 21 months agoin reply to this

        "He added, "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's representatives."

        "That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand," he said, according to the draft."

        Abortion is legal in the US. So not sure where you got the idea that abortion is not legal.

        The brief appears to dictate sending the responsibility of abortion laws back to the states.  The people vote for representatives, and this allows the majority to be heard. Our states are Red, Blue, or purple. So, I would truely assume abortion laws would differ by state. Many in the US would prefer abortion laws be made by the State government, some would prefer the Federal Government have a hand in making abortion laws. Many feel Roe V Wade is unconstitutional, and it has been a 50-year battle to overturn Roe.

        I can agree with your sentiment the US is progressive in many ways, yet backward in others.

      4. Nathanville profile image93
        Nathanvilleposted 21 months agoin reply to this

        Well said smile

        1. gmwilliams profile image85
          gmwilliamsposted 21 months agoin reply to this

          +100000000000

  2. Stephen Tomkinson profile image90
    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 22 months ago

    Legislating against abortion simply won't work. If there is a demand, someone will provide for it. Desperate women may turn to dangerous alternative "surgery" from back-street providers.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image81
      Sharlee01posted 22 months agoin reply to this

      Short and sweet... I agree

    2. Nathanville profile image93
      Nathanvilleposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      Just as it used to be before before abortions were legalised.

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 21 months agoin reply to this

        Exactly, that is why so many women died or suffered damages.

  3. Credence2 profile image79
    Credence2posted 22 months ago

    Well, the Reublicans and the Right have been scheming over the possibility of a Roe vs Wade overturn for some time now, making certain that the Supreme Court  would be packed with right leaning jurists.

    All I can say to the women of America is, "you asked for it".

    Every time you pull the level for Republican candidates, "you asked for it"


    So, now these "Red" states' legislatures can dispense with their workarounds, the lawsuit approach, and just out and out ban abortion considered applicable at the point of conception.

    So what is next?

    I got a whiff of that from the state legislator in Missouri who wished to basically criminalize women from seeking an abortion in adjacent Illinois, a locale without the Missouri restrictions.

    Conservatives are not about reason and compromise but will take it all, and its coming.

    Next is to criminalize women leaving the state for another progressive state to obtain an abortion. What would be the legal grounds to restrain anyone in this way? I don't know, yet but they will find one. Their control over your reproductive process must be total and complete. How do they accomplish that if other more enlightened states offer them the services, as many have already agreed to assist women in these circumstances.

    Do you really think that control of your reproduction processes will stop there? If you do then you don't understand the Right nor the Rightwinger.

    They will start a foray into contraception. Their boorish Christian evangelicals will drag more of their arcane "stuff" out from their bags and in their "holier than thou" fashion want to impose it on everyone else.

    Yes, ladies, it is coming, and you know what? You asked for it.

    Did you not think that misogyny would not result and would not spill over into every other aspect of progress and equity within the society in regards to women's rights? Just how much are you willing to surrender to the patriarchs?

    Again, just remember, "you asked for it".

    The drama "A Handsmaiden's tale" may not be so far fetched after all.

    See ya, I wouldn't want to be ya......

    1. Sharlee01 profile image81
      Sharlee01posted 22 months agoin reply to this

      "Well, the Reublicans and the Right have been scheming over the possibility of a Roe vs Wade overturn for some time now, making certain that the Supreme Court  would be packed with right leaning jurists."

      Funny how people truely have different beliefs in regard to abortion, and just, and both sides want to be heard. Gosh, go figure.

      "All I can say to the women of America is, "you asked for it".

      Every time you pull the level for Republican candidates, "you asked for it"

      Yes, seems odd a Republican woman might vote her own opinion... Is she just uneducated about liberal feelings on the subject?

      "So, now these "Red" states' legislatures can dispense with their workarounds, the lawsuit approach, and just out and out ban abortion considered applicable at the point of conception."

      Do citizens not vote for like-minded representatives, and is not the majority not heard the loudest? I always felt "red states" are red for a reason, are they not?

      Abortion is not an answer to the problem its a crutch, a bandaid. Education is a solution to the problem.  And women should have long realized that long ago. So, I can say with confidence --- women have a long way to go. They accept and fight for a crutch, yet the solution eludes them.

      And I always find the Handmaiden blurb odd.  I feel it might be more the possibility that those that have abortions may be the female that may need a handmaiden. There is a percentage of women due to abortion are not able to conceive. This problem increase with multiple abortions.

      I am pro-abortions, for reasons I don't feel I need to share.

      1. Credence2 profile image79
        Credence2posted 21 months agoin reply to this

        Sharlee, I don't have to be pro abortion to not like the desire of some to make edicts for others when it is none of their business.

        Let the Republican woman that is opposed to abortion  just decide to not have one.

        Oh yeah, the red states are red for a reason and virtually inhabitable from my point of view. But, I am "stuck" in Florida for unrelated reasons.

        As you admitted, there can be times when abortion is necessary, but short of an impeding death of the mother, protection of the zygote reins first and foremost in the legislation from most these sorts of states.

        Education is always the solution, but arbitrarily shutting down prerogatives and options is not the answer. You said that you worked in the medical profession, would such an edict really solve things?

        Geez, if I made such a fuss about the rightwing gun nuts and their rights and prerogatives, it would bring the house down.

        The "drama" speaks of a American society where women are nothing more than reproductive property. And with today's Republican Party, this is where we are heading. Think that they won't dare? Just watch them.

        Thanks for your attention.....

        1. Sharlee01 profile image81
          Sharlee01posted 21 months agoin reply to this

          I truely believe education could put the best tool forward to decrease the need for abortion.

          No, education would not solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies.  We just don't have a society where we could truely educate all women in regard to birth control or using it.

          I thought the Handmaidens tale portrayed a society where they had a shortage of children and a segment of women that could not get pregnant so they needed to take advantage of those that could become pregnant.

          Actually, are we far off from that problem?   We have had a decline in live births --- As of 2020, the U.S. birth rate was 55.8 births per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44, a decline of almost 20 percent from the rate of 69.3 in 2007. The decline in births cannot readily be explained by changing population composition

          As I said abortion can harm a women's reproductive system. Many conservatives are pro-life, and would likely be more able to conceive than those that may have harmed their reproductive system by using abortion as a form of birth control.

          1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 21 months agoin reply to this

            I very much agree with your point on education. Why does it always seem that in this country we attack the outcome while ignoring the processes that led to that outcome?  You know it's like the old adage of expecting a different result  when your actions have not changed at all.  There is usually  little support for preventive programs as they fall under the umbrella of "wasteful social spending"

          2. Readmikenow profile image94
            Readmikenowposted 21 months agoin reply to this

            "I truely believe education could put the best tool forward to decrease the need for abortion."

            I think having moral value for all life is the key to decrease the need for abortion.  Belief in something greater than yourself is essential.  There are many, many educated people who get abortions every year.  Education has really nothing to do with it.

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 21 months agoin reply to this

              I'll go out on a limb and say that she is talking about adequate sex education, including information about contraception to children at a certain point.  Some of these children out here are beginning to have sex as early as 12 years old and they don't understand what can and cannot prevent a pregnancy. Additionally, Not all parents are providing the tools kids need. We can put our heads in the sand but some prevention could head off some of these unwanted pregnancies.  Let's innovate on some solutions rather than just focusing on the punishment when the deed is already done.

            2. Sharlee01 profile image81
              Sharlee01posted 21 months agoin reply to this

              Oh --- you got me there.   Yes, moral values certainly help. But have you looked around lately? LOL

              Unfortunately,  we can't depend on values in today's society, we all are not created equal with respect to values. Being individuals we all do not share the same type of values.

              And yes, most likely the majority of women that get an abortion are educated.  But offering sex education at an appropriate age might arrn a female with information on how not to get pregnant.

              1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
                Fayetteville Fayeposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                Yes, Sharlee. Agree.

  4. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 22 months ago

    In all honesty, this is what I think.

    The Democrats are due to be overwhelmed in November by a Republican wave.  The polls look terrible for them.  They needed something to rally their base for the upcoming elections in November.

    Abortion is a hill where the left is willing to die on.  It is that important to them.

    So, since the mainstream media and the Democrats work together on elections, they decided to "Leak" a Supreme Court brief. 

    How often are Supreme Court briefs leaked?

    I think this may be the first one since the 1970s.

    I personally don't think Roe v Wade will be overturned.

    I am prolife, but I am also a realist.

    This is just another dirty trick by the Democrats to do something to change the Republican wave coming their way in November.  I don't think it will work.

    1. abwilliams profile image67
      abwilliamsposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      I agree Mike. When I first heard this, I turned to my husband and said, wow the Dems are getting desperate. The timing is suspect, but we'll see what happens. I think that Roberts or someone representing the Supreme Court needs to hold a press conference asap.

      1. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        I think the timing of this "leaked" Supreme Court memo is suspect.

        The Democrats are doing very badly in the polls. 

        I think this was planned.

        1. Credence2 profile image79
          Credence2posted 21 months agoin reply to this

          So, is that it, Mike?

          We shoot the messenger as the GOP and even Senator McConnell knew that they did not want this revelation out before midterms. I hope that now that it is out people will see just how draconian the GOP is and where the changes are leading. It just might help to scuttle their ship this coming November.

    2. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      Justice Roberts verified the authenticity of the leak. And they will be investigating how the leak happened.

      1. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        Isn't it interesting that this particular brief was written in February and was leaked in May, three months later?  A time when polls agree the Democrats are in serious trouble for the November election.

        This was planned.

  5. abwilliams profile image67
    abwilliamsposted 22 months ago

    I have to believe that I am not in the minority, when I say that I support a baby's God-given RIGHT to live. Roe v. Wade should have never passed in the first place. I believed it in 1973, as a young teenager and I still believe it today, at my core, there's no gray area.
    It should go back to the States, it should have never left the States!
    If this is really happening - there will be plenty of States, still on board with abortion. Girls/Women, will still have access, they may have to travel outside their State, but they'll just have to think ahead and plan accordingly.

    1. Credence2 profile image79
      Credence2posted 21 months agoin reply to this

      We all have an opinion, AB.

      Your Red States can pass all the draconian laws regarding abortion access that they wish. But, Planned Parenthood in the enlightened, progressive stands at the ready to assist women to obtain necessary abortions, legally within their boundaries.

      So what have you accomplished? A retrograde state like Oklahoma can prohibit a woman's access to an abortion, but will just get one in Colorado or California with the help of agencies there.

      Conservatives will never accept that outcome, they are just that controlling in their nature.

      1. abwilliams profile image67
        abwilliamsposted 21 months agoin reply to this

        Yes we do Cred and that's what I am sharing. My opinion.
        I've also shared this here at HP,many times.
        When I was 23, married, thought I might be pregnant, it was suggested that I go to the nearby Planned Parenthood (in downtown Orlando) for a pregnancy test, to get ob info, etc. and so I did.
        They wanted nothing to do with me, they became as cold as ice when I told them that I wanted to keep my baby. It was one of the most horrific experiences of my life. I couldn't get out of there quickly enough! They don't help people, they destroy people.
        On a happier note, I must say it is nice to see you using the words "woman" and "women" here and there.

  6. tsmog profile image85
    tsmogposted 22 months ago

    Just for info purposes below is a link to the opinion. Most definitely a lengthy read. It is a PDF document.

    https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ … -draft.pdf

  7. IslandBites profile image90
    IslandBitesposted 22 months ago

    Thirteen states in the country are poised to enact immediate abortion bans and 13 more could quickly follow suit if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.

    At least 13 states in the country have so-called "trigger laws" banning most abortions that would take effect immediately if Roe v. Wade is overturned. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research group, those states are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming, which just passed its trigger law last month.

    There are also five additional states – Alabama, Arizona, Michigan, West Virginia and Wisconsin – with an abortion ban still on the books from before Roe v. Wade that could be reinstated if the law is overturned, according to Guttmacher's research.
    Thus, the overturning of Roe v. Wade would trigger at least 18 states to ban abortions almost immediately. In addition, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and South Carolina all have laws banning abortions after the six-week mark, which have been ruled unconstitutional but would likely be revisited if Roe is overturned, Guttmacher reported.

    There are also four additional states – Florida, Indiana, Montana and Nebraska – that appear likely to ban or severely restrict abortions if Roe is overturned, based on current legislative efforts, Guttmacher reported.

    1. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      Then, it's time to get working on getting people elected who will represent your point of view and pass the legislation you want.

      It's how it works in a representative republic.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      If all this is true then it would appear that over half of America is against abortions, giving a lie to the idea that 60% of Americans approve of it.

      1. IslandBites profile image90
        IslandBitesposted 21 months agoin reply to this

        No. It means some people in power are.

        FOX News Poll

        The new national poll was completed shortly before Monday night’s leak of Associate Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion showing the high court may be poised to strike down the landmark Roe ruling.

        Overall, sentiments on Roe have held mostly steady since 2018, when Fox first asked the question. On average, more than 60% (between 57% and 65%) say the case should remain the law of the land.  The new poll finds 27% think the case should be overturned.



        https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2022/05/1862/1048/6bfd40c2-V2.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 21 months agoin reply to this

          Well, that is a horse of another color.  Elsewhere in this thread that has been discussed a little - the difference between the legality of a law and the morality of that law.

          Whether a law (decided by SCOTUS) should not be overturned by SCOTUS and whether abortion should occur are two very different questions.

          It is unfortunate that so many people appear to think that SCOTUS makes law.  Possibly because in some (too many) cases it does just that by people with a political bias rather than a Constitutional, legal one.

          1. Credence2 profile image79
            Credence2posted 21 months agoin reply to this

            Both sides have biases, Wilderness, I certainly will not put the Right on any sort of pedestal regarding interpretation of the Constitution.  Conservatives need to be placed on notice that since the leak, none of this is going to digest easily.

            1. GA Anderson profile image89
              GA Andersonposted 21 months agoin reply to this

              Bless your heart, you want a bromo for that indigestion?

              GA ;-)

              1. Credence2 profile image79
                Credence2posted 21 months agoin reply to this

                I would much rather have something that can induce vomiting.....

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 21 months agoin reply to this

              I'd give the right the edge when it comes to SCOTUS interpreting the Constitution vs making law according to political bias.  While the right is far from perfect in that regard it is much closer than the left, and any pedestal is a very short one.  It is the left, after all, that insists the Constitution is a "living document" open to change at will without need of silly requirements like states agreeing to it.

              Judging from your comments here you fit in well.  You don't appear to give one iota about the law - only what you think is right or wrong.  As the left supports abortion politically, so should the court.  Am I wrong there?

              1. Credence2 profile image79
                Credence2posted 21 months agoin reply to this

                "I'd give the right the edge when it comes to SCOTUS interpreting the Constitution vs making law according to political bias"

                Well, Wilderness, sorry I don't...
                ------
                I don't give an iota to interpretation of the law with an assumption that your own position is so above the fray and free of bias? Sorry, I doubt it.

                The court supported abortion rights in Roe vs Wade, considered settled law almost 50 years ago. What would be the legal justification to upset Roe today, and how much of that pressure is political from the Right? So, how is that not caring about the law?

              2. Readmikenow profile image94
                Readmikenowposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                "I'd give the right the edge when it comes to SCOTUS interpreting the Constitution vs making law according to political bias."

                So, you would rather have nine unelected people decided on laws that affect the entire population of the United States rather than people chose for themselves by voting?

                Do you really think the interpretation of law by SOTUS is something done without political bias?

  8. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 21 months ago

    An Alabama Lawmaker once  suggested that men should Be forced Into vasectomies If women can't have abortions: 'It Always Takes Two to Tango'  they can be reversed when it is deemed they are responsible enough both mentally, morally and financially.
    Egalitarian, right? I mean if the goal really is to decrease or stop abortion.

  9. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 21 months ago

    Recipe for success? Forced birth in a country with the highest maternal mortality rate (last in industrialized countries), no paid maternity leave, no universal, subsidized childcare, no continued birth parent care, overburdened foster care system and frequently inaccessible/non-existent mental health care.

  10. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 21 months ago

    Interesting how the latest SCOTUS nominee to be approved for the bench couldn't determine what is a woman.

    So, how can this person make a proper ruling on Roe v Wade is she is unable to determine who is and is not a woman?

    The left can't define what a woman is until abortion is an issue.  Then they are women and not birthing people. The left always wants it both ways. 

    One more example of the left hypocrisy.

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      Marsha Blackburn was simply, in my opinion trying to score culture war points by her question. She deduced that she could score a few right-wing culture-warrior points by leaning into GOP anxieties over gender and shifting popular perceptions of it.

      On the other hand, Donald Trump’s three appointees, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett dissembled their way through their Senate confirmation hearings. As nominees they each dismissed, under oath, the idea that they would overturn Roe and other rulings upholding that 1973 decision. 

      Confidence in this court has been drastically diminished if not completely lost.

      1. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 21 months agoin reply to this

        "Marsha Blackburn was simply, in my opinion trying to score culture war points by her question. She deduced that she could score a few right-wing culture-warrior points by leaning into GOP anxieties over gender and shifting popular perceptions of it."

        That's fine, but, she still stated under oath that she couldn't define what a woman was because she wasn't a biologist.  So, since she is not a biologist, how can she speak on woman's rights if she doesn't know what a woman is?

        "As nominees they each dismissed, under oath, the idea that they would overturn Roe and other rulings upholding that 1973 decision."

        Things change.

  11. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 21 months ago

    The Bibles (depending on what version you use) says "What you sow so shall you reap."
    The left has sown seeds of Transgender men believing they are actually women.  Now, members on the left believe men can become pregnant.  This is a fact. The left seems to have lost their collective minds.

    "Gavin Newsom savagely mocked as ‘disgusting transphobe’ for claiming men can’t get pregnant at abortion rally

    "In replies to Newsom's tweet, YouTuber Blaire White asked, "did you just come out as a transphobe[?]"

    "’If men could get pregnant…’? Bigot! #CancelGavinNewsom" replied conservative YouTuber Viva Frei."

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/gavin-new … t-abortion

  12. Credence2 profile image79
    Credence2posted 21 months ago

    The Rightwinger has always been a "pain in the ass".

    The issue is that once Roe is overturned, it will be assumed that state governments will determine for themselves where life begins, and clearly state that the concept of privacy is just a figment of ones imagination.

    States rights are valid in most cases as I have relatives in the Salt Lake area in Utah, where the state has no lotteries or gambling. Having this arrangement is well within the rights of a state legislature. It is just that their residents make the trek to Wendover, at the Nevada state, line to turn the roulette or play the slots. If you don't like the law, go to the neighboring state and indulge in your vice, no harm done.

    However, states rights cannot be allowed to circumvent the 14th amendment requirement of equal protection under the law for every American citizen, regardless of where they live. And many states laws have been repealed and negatively adjudicated by the Supreme Court for just that reason.

    This abortion issue will touch on Constitutional related issues unrelated to the right to participate in lotteries or sanctioned gambling facilities.

    What happens when women decide to leave retrograde Oklahoma to cross the Colorado state line where facilities will be immediately made available? When Red States speak of restricting women's access to facilities in other states where the procedures are legal, what then? And you can believe that they are planning for this as we speak.

    A constitutional crisis that will bring the house down. Can a state restrict the movement of a resident who is not otherwise incarcerated under due process of law, solely to prevent them from obtaining an abortion in an alternate venue where the procedure is legal?

    That is the $60,000 question. The fireworks that would start. I have to see how the Right will support this.

    So let loose the dogs of war, as that has been the desire of the Right in attacking Roe from the beginning. We all knew that this was coming and we are relieved that we just get it all out and now, we can get in on.

    1. GA Anderson profile image89
      GA Andersonposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      (psst. it's '$64,000 Question')

      GA (LMAO)

      1. Credence2 profile image79
        Credence2posted 21 months agoin reply to this

        Yeah, thanks, I had forgotten that one..

    2. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      "A constitutional crisis that will bring the house down. Can a state restrict the movement of a resident who is not otherwise incarcerated under due process of law, solely to prevent them from obtaining an abortion in an alternate venue where the procedure is legal?"

      I don't think anybody would care.  This is just your imagination speaking. There is no proof of at all to what you claim.

      1. Credence2 profile image79
        Credence2posted 21 months agoin reply to this

        https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ … strictions

        Of course "they" will care, Mike, as the rightwing moniker represent power and control over others. I put nothing past you, if you could get away with, you will certainly try. Red states legislatures would never allow its residents to snub their edicts with viable workarounds.

        And The Left will be waiting for you....

        1. Readmikenow profile image94
          Readmikenowposted 21 months agoin reply to this

          Your article made my point.

          "Lawmakers in Missouri weighed legislation early this year that would allow individuals to sue anyone helping a patient cross state lines for an abortion. The law was ultimately blocked in the state’s legislature."

          Trying to restrict a person's movement from one state to another is blatantly unconstitutional.

          Again, this is all about nothing.  It is being done simply because democrats and biden are doing so poorly in the polls.  They needed something to rally the base and this is it.  It's the only reason the memo was leaked.  It served a purpose to the left.

  13. IslandBites profile image90
    IslandBitesposted 21 months ago

    Interesting interview.

    Frank Schaeffer once produced propaganda films that helped launch the Christian right.

    Why this former anti-abortion activist regrets the movement he helped build

    It reminded me of this Samantha Bee Show episode I watched a while ago.

    The Religious Right: Part Two

    1. GA Anderson profile image89
      GA Andersonposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      Ha! 4:40 - 5:16.

      GA

    2. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      IslandBites, I will give you a better analogy.  Remember the film Schindler's List in which Oskar Schindler was a profiteer who couldn't care less about the people who worked for him.  When he finally discovered what happened, he had a change of heart.

  14. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 21 months ago

    I always find it interesting that Roe v Wade is based on lies. Norma McCorvey AKA "Roe" lied about her situation.  Here is an interview with her from ABC many years ago.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufi6QUKe2Tg

  15. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 21 months ago

    I think abortion has gone too far.

    Now, late term abortion is legal in some states.  That is clearly infanticide.

    Now there is Bill 2223 being considered in the California state assembly.

    This WOULD legalize infanticide.

    "the bill could be interpreted to immunize a pregnant person from all criminal penalties for all pregnancy related outcomes, including the death of a newborn for any reason during the 'perinatal' period after birth, including a cause of death which is not attributable to pregnancy complications…"

    WHY the war on unborn children and NOW newly delivered children?

    https://www.wnd.com/2022/05/confirmed-p … eady-born/

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      A quote from the above mentioned bill's sponsor, Buffy Wicks (Oakland):

      "Anti-abortion activists are peddling an absurd and disingenuous argument that this bill is about killing newborns, when ironically, the part of the bill they’re pointing to is about protecting and supporting parents experiencing the grief of pregnancy loss,” Wicks said. “No person should face prison time for a tragic pregnancy outcome, and this bill will ensure that prosecutions and investigations have no place in reproductive health care.”

      AB 2223 is intended to protect those who obtain an abortion or experience a miscarriage from civil or criminal liability,

      That’s not a hypothetical. The Kings County District Attorney’s Office has prosecuted two different women over stillbirths.

      1. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 21 months agoin reply to this

        It also protects people if a child outside of the womb is killed for "non-pregnancy" related issues.  It is infantcide.

    2. IslandBites profile image90
      IslandBitesposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      The propaganda article you posted is from May. But maybe they forgot to check/read before they made it. roll

      That was an early (Feb) version of the Bill.

      An analysis from the Assembly Judiciary Committee prepared for an April 5 hearing on the bill suggested clarifying that section since, the report said, that “language could lead to an unintended and undesirable conclusion.”

      The report continued: “As currently in print, it may not be sufficiently clear that ‘perinatal death’ is intended to be the consequence of a pregnancy complication. Thus, the bill could be interpreted to immunize a pregnant person from all criminal penalties for all pregnancy outcomes, including the death of a newborn for any reason during the ‘perinatal’ period after birth, including a cause of death which is not attributable to pregnancy complications, which clearly is not the author’s intent.”


      The Bill was amended in April.

      The bill’s language was then amended to say, “perinatal death due to a pregnancy-related cause.” The bill’s sponsor, Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, took to Twitter the same day as the committee hearing to address the claims of legalized infanticide.

      “Let me be clear: #AB2223 doesn’t prevent the state from keeping children safe. This isn’t a bill about infanticide. This is about protecting Californians who suffer pregnancy loss from being unjustly investigated, prosecuted or incarcerated. Full stop,” she wrote, before going on to highlight the change to the language.


      Assembly Bill 2223

      1. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 21 months agoin reply to this

        Now, does the bill define what is a "pregnancy-related" cause?  It does not.  This leads to a wide interpretation of it.

        It STILL can be used to commit infanticide.

    3. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      Sir,  there should be no unwanted pregnancies.  All children should be wanted.  What YOU are suggesting that women should have unwanted children.  No, that is inhumane & unconscionable.  Abortion should REMAIN legal always.  You probably haven't been exposed to children who were unwanted which led to abuse & other things.  Abortion is healthcare & should be treated as such.

  16. IslandBites profile image90
    IslandBitesposted 21 months ago

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in an interview with USA Today a national abortion ban is “possible” if Roe v. Wade gets overturned this summer.

    “If the leaked opinion became the final opinion, legislative bodies — not only at the state level but at the federal level — certainly could legislate in that area,” McConnell told USA Today when asked if a national abortion ban is “worthy of debate.”

    “And if this were the final decision, that was the point that it should be resolved one way or another in the legislative process. So yeah, it’s possible,” he concluded.

    “With regard to the abortion issue, I think it’s pretty clear where Senate Republicans stand,” McConnell said. “And if and when the court makes a final decision, I expect everybody will be more definitive. But I don’t think it’s much secret where senator Republicans stand on that issue.”

    1. Sharlee01 profile image81
      Sharlee01posted 21 months agoin reply to this

      It appears McConnell was being truthful.

      The Republicans have been fighting to overturn Roe for 50 years. No surprise that many Republicans feel that overturning Roe would be a huge victory.

  17. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 21 months ago

    Really though, how did we get here?? This has become a circus of far right extremists one-upping  each other.   Blake Masters, an Arizona GOP candidate for Senate, is running on an anti-abortion platform.
    His campaign site says he will only vote for judges who believe Griswold v. Connecticut was wrongly decided. The Griswold decision overturned a state ban on birth control, protecting the right to use contraceptives.  Please, anyone care to explain how this is not a war for power & control over women?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/arizona … rol-2022-5

  18. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 21 months ago

    I think one of the most upsetting things for the left when it comes to the reversal of Roe v Wade is, they will then be forced to sell their ideas to the public.  They will be required to compete with prolife beliefs to the general public. The left is afraid of competition when it comes to ideas. I think their fear is based on the realization that most voters won't support them.  Because they can't compete in the arena of ideas, they must resort to depending on nine people, with life-time appointments and no accountability, to decide their issues.

    I've always held that liberalism = communism and this only makes my point. 

    Liberals and their ideas can't compete in a free society.  They can't handle a self-governing society.  They are more comfortable with an authoritarian government deciding things.  They fear the will of the people because so many people don't like their ideas.

    They want to decide who gets what rights without people voting on it.

    It's understandable why they are so afraid.

    1. abwilliams profile image67
      abwilliamsposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      I completely agree Mike. Well stated.

    2. Nathanville profile image93
      Nathanvilleposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      Is that just more American right-wing propaganda or do you truly have no idea of the difference between liberalism, socialism and communism. 

      By your blinkered definition, most of the rest of the free democratic countries in the world, outside of the USA, are communist countries!

    3. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      "Because they can't compete in the arena of ideas, they must resort to depending on nine people, with life-time appointments and no accountability, to decide their issues."

      I'll remind you that the case heard before SCOTUS in December was brought by the Republican led state of Mississippi. The state  asked the Court not only to uphold its abortion ban, but to overrule Roe and find there is no constitutional right to abortion. So, no it is not "leftists" asking the court to decide.

      "They want to decide who gets what rights without people voting on it."

      We are talking about rights that are protected by the constitution.

      1. abwilliams profile image67
        abwilliamsposted 21 months agoin reply to this

        "We are talking about rights that are protected by the constitution".

        Which rights are you referring to Faye?
        The Right to Life?

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 21 months agoin reply to this

          No, The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether to have an abortion.

          Writing for the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, Justice Harry Blackmun said that the court held a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected under the 14th Amendment.

          And this isn't just about abortion. We have many other  rights and laws conferred to us here in America under The 14th amendment. I think we will see those undone also. Overturning Roe will certainly open the door.

      2. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 21 months agoin reply to this

        "I'll remind you that the case heard before SCOTUS in December was brought by the Republican led state of Mississippi."

        So? The state of Mississippi has as much right to bring a case before the SCOTU as any other of the 49 states.

        "We are talking about rights that are protected by the constitution."

        No, abortionists talk about rights they interpret from the constitution. They see things different with a specifically guaranteed law in the constitution such as the 2nd amendment is on the line.

        Since we live in a representative republic, why not get the states to approve an amendment to the constitution specifically making abortion legal? That would end the debate.  If 80 percent of Americans actually believe in abortion, it shouldn't be a problem.  Right?   

        And it won't happen.  As I stated before.

        "Liberals and their ideas can't compete in a free society.  They can't handle a self-governing society.  They are more comfortable with an authoritarian government deciding things.  They fear the will of the people because so many people don't like their ideas."

  19. abwilliams profile image67
    abwilliamsposted 21 months ago

    I am referring to the obvious and explicit written words, guaranteeing the Right to Life and you come in with a flimsy interpretation, a reading into, of what is meant by, the right to privacy. You are reaching l am not.

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      It's not my interpretation.  It's the interpretation and ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States 1973 Roe v Wade.

      1. abwilliams profile image67
        abwilliamsposted 21 months agoin reply to this

        That's what I said, "a flimsy interpretation".

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 21 months agoin reply to this

          Well you're raising the larger issue of the legitimacy of the court. Some say it's outlived it's usefulness. Some say it should be abolished. You make the case, when you make the argument that the ruling of one group of justices in 1973 is illegitimate or flimsy but The likely ruling on Roe v Wade of the current court is not.

          1. abwilliams profile image67
            abwilliamsposted 21 months agoin reply to this

            It is very clear that everyone has the RIGHT to life, correct? The current Court hasn't ruled to take away anyone's rights, as the radical court of 1973 did, they're leaning toward returning it to the States to decide. They aren't taking anything away from anyone.

  20. abwilliams profile image67
    abwilliamsposted 21 months ago

    While on the subject of privacy. Do the Supreme Court Justices have the right to privacy?

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      Of course they do. They are living under all of the same rights and laws as the rest of us. If laws are being broken, The law breakers will be held accountable.

      1. abwilliams profile image67
        abwilliamsposted 21 months agoin reply to this

        We'll see.

  21. abwilliams profile image67
    abwilliamsposted 21 months ago

    What about the pro-life office that had a Molotov cocktail thrown into it, do their rights end, where the angry pro-death crowd's rights begin?

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      I am in no way defending those actions. Just as I am sure you don't defend the actions of some on January 6th.  There are people, violent people, who break the law within every walk of life and within every political party. Wrong is wrong. It's not red or blue.

      1. abwilliams profile image67
        abwilliamsposted 21 months agoin reply to this

        I know. The actions of January 6th are horrible, an unarmed woman was shot and killed that day for the crime of supporting Donald Trump and many U.S. Citizens have had their RIGHTS violated, treated as if they've committed felonies, when they've only been charged with misdemeanors! Ya'll are right to keep going back to that day. We need to be reminded of that day often, it is way past time, we need to see ALL of the video from that day. "Wrong is wrong".

  22. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 21 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/15992006.jpg

    1. Credence2 profile image79
      Credence2posted 21 months agoin reply to this

      One thing we do know, Mike, is that they are not mere incubation machines that you cannot just tinker with at will.

      You will have the opportunity to witness that discontent in the coming protests, marches and activism and that will provide the answer.

      1. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 21 months agoin reply to this

        Great!  Good to see you are for mob rule. 

        I say if abortion is so popular then have it specifically amended into the constitution.  Have a resolution for the amendment passed by the House and the Senate and approved by the president.  Then all you have to do is have 2/3 of the states approve it and then abortion is part of the constitution forever.

        But, maybe the idea of abortion isn't as popular as you believe.  Could it be that there aren't enough people willing to vote abortion into law?  Is it possible there are more people who are pro life who are legal citizens who work, pay taxes and vote in numbers greater than the other side?

        If this were the case you wouldn't have to resort to mob rule.  But because you can't get everything you want from a democratic system, you have to engage in mob rule.

        From the Democrats/Communists I expect nothing less.

        I'm sure it won't get you what you want and quite the opposite.

        Just keep the burning and looting to the blue states and everything will be fine. Try it in a red state and it might not go well for you.

        1. Credence2 profile image79
          Credence2posted 21 months agoin reply to this

          Cmon, Mike, no need to get your drawers in a bunch.

          The right to protest and march is not mob rule, is that what you Righties think?

          No more than you are going to 2/3 of the states to go along with a nationwide ban. You guys wanted your respective state's control of the issue, isn't that enough?  But, regardless, affected woman will be coming to blue states in droves to still have the procedure done. What are you going to do about that?

          There is no evidence of your correlation between legal residents who work and pay taxes as being anti choice, just another Red Herring?

          Having the right to protest is part of a democratic system, Mike, a refresher in civics would do you good.

          There is that word again "Communist". With you folks, I have to still believe that Joseph McCarthy is still alive, still full of annoying and irrelevant concepts.

          At least we don't storm the capital building like mad rabble to get our point across, Protests will be done fervently and with conviction, and without violence. And you will witness a change from the current lay of the land.

          1. Readmikenow profile image94
            Readmikenowposted 21 months agoin reply to this

            "But, regardless, affected woman will be coming to blue states in droves to still have the procedure done. What are you going to do about that?"

            If it was up to me, I'd let them.

            "There is no evidence of your correlation between legal residents who work and pay taxes as being anti choice, just another Red Herring?"

            Who do you think make up the pro life movement? American citizens who work and pay taxes.

            "At least we don't storm the capital building like mad rabble to get our point across, Protests will be done fervently and with conviction, and without violence. And you will witness a change from the current lay of the land.'

            No...your side just burns and loots a few major cities around the country causing over a billion dollars in damage to get your point across.   

            Again, it's against the law to protest at the home of a supreme court justice.  Those people who do this should be prosecuted.  This is not a protest, but an act of intimidation. 

            It's all the democrats/communists have left.

            There is an old saying that goes "If you could reason with a Democrat there wouldn't be democrats."

            Intimidation tactics, mob rule, etc.  That is how people on the left protest.
            That just speaks more loudly of the left's inability to convince anyone their ideas are something anybody wants.

            US citizens are permitted to vote to put people in government who represent their views.  It happens whether the left likes it or not.

            1. Credence2 profile image79
              Credence2posted 21 months agoin reply to this

              "If it was up to me, I'd let them."

              Good then I can rest  assured that Righty will be out of the way.

              This assertion of yours that pro choice people are not tax paying working people has not real basis in reality beyond the fact that you say so, and you are going to have to do better.

              No one isn't allowed to intimidate justices but we can threaten Rightwinger politicians by ejecting them from office when November gets here, we can do that. Through protest we can keep this issue and their opposition to Roe front and center until then.  And, you know what? That suits me fine.


              We put people in Government that represent our views, that is why Joseph Biden, Jr. is President, right?

              1. Readmikenow profile image94
                Readmikenowposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                "This assertion of yours that pro choice people are not tax paying working people has not real basis in reality beyond the fact that you say so, and you are going to have to do better."

                Making no such assertion.  Just clarifying that pro life individuals have every right to their beliefs.

                "No one isn't allowed to intimidate justices but we can threaten Rightwinger politicians by ejecting them from office when November gets here, we can do that. Through protest we can keep this issue and their opposition to Roe front and center until then.  And, you know what? That suits me fine."

                Protesting directly at a SCOTU's home is illegal, yet, it is what democrats/communists are doing. This is an intimidation tactic that will backfire on them.  These are intelligent people.  Not only will they not be intimidated, I'm sure these actions have only strengthened their resolve to end Roe v Wade.

                It is also against the law to protest at a place of worship, yet, that is what the democrats/communists are doing all over the country.

                They are permitted to do this because the democrat/communist in the white house, has not put a stop to it.  It is within the behavior of communists.  When they are trying to take power, or when they are put in power, one of the first things they do is attack religious institutions. Again, these are not protests.  This is mob actions to intimidate those who disagree with you. 

                "We put people in Government that represent our views, that is why Joseph Biden, Jr. is President, right?"

                I still have the position that biden and the democrats/communists got that mindless, feeble, old man in office by cheating.  We could go on about this, but there is more evidence being discovered daily.  When the Republicans take over congress this fall, an investigation will be performed concerning the 2020 election.  So, no, I don't think the American people as a whole voted for biden to be president.

                1. TheShadowSpecter profile image85
                  TheShadowSpecterposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                  "I still have the position that biden and the democrats/communists got that mindless, feeble, old man in office by cheating.  We could go on about this, but there is more evidence being discovered daily.  When the Republicans take over congress this fall, an investigation will be performed concerning the 2020 election.  So, no, I don't think the American people as a whole voted for biden to be president."

                  My exact thoughts.  If the Republicans take over the House and the Senate this November, the Congress will revisit the question on whether the 2020 presidential election was rigged.  This time much more compelling evidence will be found to prove that Joe Biden is not our legitimate president.  The Congress will present it to the Electoral College, and Donald Trump will be reinstated for a second term as our nation's president sometime in 2023.  The question will remain on how he will be compensated for the two and a half years in office that Biden and Harris will have stolen from him by then.  The Supreme Court of the United States will likely get involved and rule that Trump be allowed to stay in office for the full four years of his second term and that the 2024 presidential election be postponed until 2027.  It should be interesting in that event, because nothing like this has ever happened here in our nation before.

                  1. Credence2 profile image79
                    Credence2posted 21 months agoin reply to this

                    I wouldn't bet on it....

                  2. Readmikenow profile image94
                    Readmikenowposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                    "The Congress will present it to the Electoral College, and Donald Trump will be reinstated for a second term as our nation's president sometime in 2023"

                    I don't think any of that will happen.  I don't think it should happen.  I believe what should happen is that protections be put in place to prevent the democrats/communists from doing such a thing again.

                  3. GA Anderson profile image89
                    GA Andersonposted 21 months agoin reply to this

                    That's one hellava Doom's Day scenario. It might compete with the one of Putin going nuclear.

                    GA

      2. abwilliams profile image67
        abwilliamsposted 21 months agoin reply to this

        No, we are WOMEN and GOD created us so that LIFE on earth might be sustained. What an HONOR!

        Now you are making threats, "we will witness discontent, protests, marches, activism" against what, LIFE?

        1. Credence2 profile image79
          Credence2posted 21 months agoin reply to this

          Not threats, outcomes...

          I cannot deny your point of view, it is just that we all don't share it. And the women who bear the child should be allowed to make the decision as to whether a fertilized egg will become a child within a reasonable amount of time after fertilization. There is more to "life" than just being born.

          1. abwilliams profile image67
            abwilliamsposted 21 months agoin reply to this

            Those "decisions" need to be made ahead of time. The majority of abortions are for convenience alone. Abortion seekers list their reasons as bad timing, can't afford it, already have children, partner related issues, marital status, age, interferes with their education, would change their life.....

            1. Credence2 profile image79
              Credence2posted 21 months agoin reply to this

              How many women simply miscalculate after "a roll in the hay"? Birth control is not foolproof. So, Republicans say don't have intercourse, a simplistic answer to a primal drive.

              The reality is that more women are going to seek these services outside the boundaries of these repressive states, anyway. So what have you accomplished? Our Blue states have even offered to help them. And, even your laws cannot restrict their freedom to move, unless that is next on the rightwing agenda.

    2. GA Anderson profile image89
      GA Andersonposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      Now, that's a jab!

      GA

  23. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 21 months ago

    Here we go folks.
    As Idahoans plan for a future without abortion rights, a leading Republican in the Idaho House would support holding hearings on legislation banning abortion pills and morning-after pills.
    Did this go to a vote??  Republican run states are falling over themselves trying to outdo each other.  This is literally life interpreted at fertilization or possibly even  hours before In the case of the morning after pill. Please, I don't want to hear about government overreach ever again.

    1. Credence2 profile image79
      Credence2posted 21 months agoin reply to this

      They are tyrannical savages, they are going to virtually tie women to their bedposts to make most of this madness work.

      Their positions in this matter are simply non-negotiable.

      Conservatives only speak of "government overreach" in regards to concepts that they oppose, otherwise they are more than happy to invite the State into your bedroom. These are hypocrites of the highest order.

      I see a "Handmaiden's tale"  future if they are allowed to prevail.

  24. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 21 months ago

    Liberals always point to Europe as an example.

    "Study Finds Most European Abortion Laws Limit Abortion Earlier Than Mississippi Law At The Heart Of Supreme Court Case"

    "CLI sampled a group of 50 European countries, independent states, and semi-autonomous regions with populations over one million, comparing the gestational limits for abortion to Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act. The study found that 47 out of 50 European nations restrict abortion to prior to 15 weeks and five countries limit abortions to 14 weeks, including Germany and Belgium."

    https://dailycaller.com/2021/07/27/euro … sippi-law/

    1. savvydating profile image91
      savvydatingposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      A little-known fact and a good point, Mike. Europeans are ahead of Americans in this one area.

      It is unfortunate that Leftist Americans are perfectly fine with tearing a human being apart in the womb, limb by limb. The last to go is the head of the child which must be smashed before it can be sucked out of the woman's body. If all else fails, they can always wait until the child is born to kill it altogether.

      Is there anything the "Progressives" will not do for the sake of convenience?

      Apparently not.

      Dr. Bernard Nathanson should know. He pushed Roe vs Wade, later admitting he lied about the science of life.

      https://www.lifenews.com/2021/02/23/rem … trys-lies/

      1. abwilliams profile image67
        abwilliamsposted 21 months agoin reply to this

        So horrific Savvy, but it is all about them, so what do they care!? sad

        1. savvydating profile image91
          savvydatingposted 21 months agoin reply to this

          Unfortunately, they do not consider the life of the helpless, unborn child. For them, it is not an entity worth considering.

          Dr. Nathanson made abortion, in his words, “sexy.” He knew how easy it would be to fool the public, particularly liberals. He appealed to their egos realizing he would not be questioned by many people, if any. He came to regret his deception in later years and did what he could to educate the public about the actual science. By then the damage had been done.

        2. savvydating profile image91
          savvydatingposted 21 months agoin reply to this

          He wrote two books.

  25. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 21 months ago

    Meanwhile in Texas...One Texas law passed last year lists several medications as abortion-inducing drugs and largely bars their use for abortion after the seventh week of pregnancy. But two of those drugs, misoprostol and mifepristone, are the only drugs recommended in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines for treating a patient after an early pregnancy loss.

    The challenge is that the treatment for an abortion and the treatment for a miscarriage are exactly the same," said Dr. Sarah Prager, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington in Seattle and an expert in early pregnancy loss.

    Dr. Lauren Thaxton, an OB-GYN and assistant professor at the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas-Austin, has already heard about local patients who have been miscarrying, and couldn't get a pharmacy to fill their misoprostol prescription.

    The pharmacy has said, 'We don't know whether or not you might be using this medication for the purposes of abortion,'" she said.

    Under another new Texas abortion law, someone who "aids or abets" an abortion after cardiac activity can be detected — typically around six weeks  can be subject to at least a $10,000 fine per occurrence. Anyone can bring that civil action, posing a quandary for physicians and other providers. How do they follow the latest guidelines when numerous other people  from other medical professionals to friends and family members  can question their intent: Are they helping care for a miscarriage or facilitating an abortion?

    Way to go Texas.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho … scarriages

    1. abwilliams profile image67
      abwilliamsposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      Well that's good since the little ones have heartbeats by 5 1/2 to 6 weeks.
      Here's a thought.... (stay with me) abstain, use birth control (so many choices) or get yourself or your mate, fixed, if any of that is just so darn difficult! Especially if you don't want any little people in your life!

      1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
        Fayetteville Fayeposted 21 months agoin reply to this

        You've missed the entire point. This isn't about abortion, this is about people being unable to access proper medication, prescribed by their physician after they've miscarried, to stop bleeding. They're being denied because they are the same drugs used in abortion. Pharmacist do not want to hand them over because They could be fined $10,000. It is not the pharmacist job to question patients about a medication their physician prescribes.  Patients who have miscarried cannot get their medications filled in Texas. Stop trying to make everything so partisan.

        1. abwilliams profile image67
          abwilliamsposted 21 months agoin reply to this

          "This isn't about abortion"
          ???
          Your words:
          "Meanwhile in Texas...One Texas law passed last year lists several medications as abortion-inducing drugs and largely bars their use for abortion after the seventh week of pregnancy."

          1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 21 months agoin reply to this

            The same procedures and medications used in abortions are also used to safely care for miscarriages.

            “Medically, miscarriage and abortions are treated in very similar way,” said Dr. Stephanie Mischell, a family medicine physician in Texas and fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health.

            This means that laws that restrict abortion or that outlaw certain medications or procedures used in abortion, also have the potential to limit treatment for miscarriage.

            Mischell said this is already happening in states like Texas.

            "I’ve had patients who were 15, 16, or 17 weeks pregnant when the fetus died and had to carry it around, and I’ve seen patients who had been told they can’t get care for miscarriages, even though these services are completely legal for miscarriage,”

            This is about further endangering women.

            https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n … -rcna27349

  26. IslandBites profile image90
    IslandBitesposted 21 months ago

    A very interesting read.

    Antiabortion advocate worked for years to overturn Roe, but worries over next steps

    “It’s this little myopic view of pro-life,” Simpson said. “‘Antiabortion’ is one thing but ‘pro-life’ should encompass so much more.”

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 21 months agoin reply to this

      Can you summarize? I'm not able to read due to the paywall.

      1. IslandBites profile image90
        IslandBitesposted 20 months agoin reply to this

        I missed this comment, sorry. It is an interesting (way too long) article.

        But I think this line says all.

        “‘Antiabortion’ is one thing but ‘pro-life’ should encompass so much more.”

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)