Under his eye... Roe v. Wade
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?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.
GANo 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."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?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.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?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.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.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"How much of the public is qualified to address that issue?"
I think the only "qualification" you need to address this issue is to be an American citizen.Maybe I got on the wrong train. What would your referendum be, (relative to this court decision)? Is it the one I felt was implied in your criticisms of the correctness of the Court's decision, or one inferred from others; a referendum about whether abortion should be legal, (a woman's choice)?
GAReferendum, meaning state by state. Put to the voters to decide. 26 states will immediately ban abortion when Roe falls. If the Supreme Court is sending power back to the states, voters in those states need to decide.
Then we are talking about two different things.
I see this as an issue of constitutional law. That is the question the court was asked to address. Not the consequences of their judgment—relative to the issue of their judgment—the correctness of the RoeVWade precedent.
That's the direction the OP set: The question of should this precedent be overturned. I don't mind tangents, we just got ours crossed. I think the only valid argument is the judicial one, not the abortion one. The legal one, not the should or shouldn't one.
GA
Now that's a major issue, when all you need to be a Constitutional scholar is to be American. It has been, and will be again in the future, a major problem when justices make law rather than interpret it.
You don't have to be a Constitutional scholar to have an opinion and a belief on an issue that affects your life.
"It has been, and will be again in the future, a major problem when justices make law rather than interpret it."
You are 100 percent correct. Unelected individuals with lifetime appointments shouldn't have the ability to make laws.No, but you have to be a Constitutional scholar to give an informed opinion on the constitutionality of RvW. That's what I was speaking about.
No one, on any judicial bench in the country, elected or not, should have the ability to make laws. Only enforce and/or interpret them.
Sure thing. Are those American citizens also qualified to judge the techniques of heart surgery?
We must be talking about different referendums. Mine was about judging the constitutional correctness of a court decision, within the framework of established constitutional law. Yours sounds like one to judge whether abortion should be legal, or not.
Do you really think any American citizen is qualified to make a judgment on my referendum?
[EDITED]
GA
"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."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.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.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.
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.
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?
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'.
GADuring 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?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.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.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.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.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.
You do understand that the only people that can be legally killed are those that belong to another? Those that are wholly owned by a second person?
Your comparison to a slave state then becomes true...in the sense that those getting an abortion (legally killing someone) are the slave masters, not the slaves.
You might want to re-think the idea that denying a woman the right to kill the child she created makes it a slave state.There is a difference, Wilderness, between a zygote and a human being who whose existence is independent of the "master" and should have every right to be free and to live independently just as they do.
Is a zygote that cannot physically live without the existence of the mother the same as involuntary servitude? I doubt it. I say that this compares apples with hand granades. There are many that do not consider zygotes to be a person. That was supposed to have been decided by Roe vs. Wade, until it wasn't."There are many that do not consider zygotes to be a person."
There are indeed, and I am one of them.
According to what I read here in this thread, RvW did NOT decide that; the decision was based solely on privacy guaranteed by the Constitution and had nothing to do with whether a zygote, or an early fetus, was human. Many (including myself) took the decision to mean that, but apparently we were all wrong, and not because of that leaked document. Because of the decision decades ago.
But as far as a human being whose existence is independent of the "master"...that would mean that children up to, say, 14 or 15 are slaves owned by their parent(s). Certainly an infant under 1 year old is. I would disagree.I see, but the problem was based on your religion or lack thereof, everybody had their own interpretation of where life began. Roe vs Wade was not abortion on demand, but it did not allow bible thumpers to impose their zygote interpretation on everyone else.It was crucial and it has kept the peace for almost 50 years until conservatives wanted to upset the compromise or balance that they agreed to.
Children are charged to their parents or legal guardians, but they are NOT property. This is not the case for slaves.
I think all of us, including your "some", need more information.
GA
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?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.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.
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.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.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."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.Money is something else and not on the same level as bearing a child.
No man knows what it is to be pregnant or to have a period every month. or go through the menopause.
That's why I would say abortion should be a woman's matter. not just in the US but worldwide.
In many countries, politics is made by man, man orientated. If you want the best decisions made you have to ask experts.
The best experts in pregnancy are women.
There will be plenty of discourse about which way to go with abortion among women, sure. But I think it won't be a bad thing for men to be a bit more humble in their opinions when it's about things like pregnancy, abortion, breast cancer, etc."The best experts in pregnancy are women."
Are the best experts on the sanctity of life women? Are women better at deciding who should be executed or not?
I think not. You are falling into the trap of "It's MY body and I can do what I want with that child inside!" without giving any consideration to the child at all. There are TWO people involved in an abortion, not just one.
Of course that depends on when you think a zygote becomes a "people"...and I haven't heard anyone give a definition of that point I can accept.Wilderness to think about two people is the trap.
Neither a zygote nor an embryo is a person.
A cow has more intellect than an embryo, let alone a zygote or sperm cell.
So let's start with stopping killing cows first and then we talk about killing embryos...While I agree with you about being a person, a great many do not. What makes your opinion (and mine) more valid than theirs and why is their opinion ignored as not a part of any consideration on abortion?
(While a cow has more intellect, it certainly does not have the potential of an embryo. That is one argument I've heard; that the potential makes an embryo a person with the same rights as you and I.)I don't buy the argument of potential...It could be Bach it could be Hitler....it could be stillborn...
(but normally spoken there are good reasons when women ask for ant abortion, and I don't think women will do it lightly)
My opion is just an opinon. And I'm a man, so it's in a way not much worth in this discussion.
I think the laws regarding abortion should be made by women (or 80% women) as they are the persons who have to bear and give birth to the child give milk etc.
It wouldn't be such a bad idea to give them the responsibility to make laws about this issue.I don't buy the "potential" argument, either. Still, it and it's companion that a zygote is a person is an argument, an argument that is just as good as your argument that it is not ("because I say so!"). It is something that needs discussed and settled, for it is the primary (the only IMO) argument worth anything at all. All the statements in the world of "yes it is" and "No it isn't" are worth less than the ink to print them...until they are backed up with rational arguments andor facts.
So...which sex has a better opinion, worth more, on when a zygote becomes a person? Why? One could say that women are more emotionally involved so the decision should be a man's.I think you are right. But to settle the discussion about if a zygote is a person or not you should do it scientifically. And I think a lot of religious people won't except it.
It is difficult to reason reasonable when religious beliefs come into play.But the woman is personally affected in a way that the man is not. It is her body that must submit to the changes associated with pregnancy, while the guy can just go off and impregnate another....
Where is the male responsibility? Where is the legislation to make this truly egalitarian?
Forced vasectomies at age 10? Reversed when you can prove you are responsible both financially and psychologically for a child? Support payments, legally enforced beginning at the moment of conception?Forget it, Faye, in a patriarchy, we can't hear of men being asked to accept their portion of responsibility and the burden that they so easily want to impose on women.
Exactly Credence. Roe vs. Wade won't be overturned as there will be people who will protest & rightfully so.
I know you read the leaked brief. How does that language somehow come to the conclusion of leaving Roe intact? I can't see it. Alito took it behind the barn, shot it and buried it. My only hope is that it is going to set the millennial and Gen Z'ers on fire in terms of activism and turn out at the polls. They've never known a world without freedom over their own bodies.
With the Rightwing tribunal AKA, "The Supreme Court", my hopes are only that. Rightwing media is livid about the "leak" as if this information should never have been revealed at an inappropriate time, before midterms?
They don't care that it would not be well received, as they knew that, only that they wanted a more opportune time to "drop the bomb", hoping to pay less of a political price.
But, they must be made to pay, regardless...Who do you think should pay? Those justices that are interpreting the law according to the Constitution, an interpretation that you don't want to see?
They are interpreting the law according to what YOU consider to be the appropriate manner. I beg to dIffer. There will be a political reaction to this leak, that is what is meant by "pay".
A flintstone attitude by the Right on gender issues just might make one think as to how to pull the lever once in the voting booth next fall.
And it is all out now for everyone to see!I did not realize you were a noted Constitutional Scholar, respected nationwide for your work there.
Perhaps you can do a better job of explaining how "privacy" (guaranteed by the Constitution) applies to killing infants?
(For the record I do not support this decision, if that's the way it goes. I personally find that even if the original RvW was no more than a political compromise by the court rather than a true legal opinion, that it has been long enough to consider it law anyway and it should be left alone {isn't that the rationale for allowing dreamers? That it has been too long since instituted to change even if it were illegal?}. However, I can also understand how a SCOTUS justice would never accept that rationalization, and perhaps they should not.)I don't claim to be a Constitutional scholar or such.
As I mentioned before, is a zygote an infant?
We both agree that Roe vs Wade should remain, but for different reasons, perhaps.
We define infants as fetuses that are viable outside the mother's body. I agree that abortion on demand over late stages of pregnancy should be scrutinized. But, I also say that it is unreasonable to use the point of conception as the point where illegal abortion can apply. These will have ramifications into contraception and birth control, it can't help to not be otherwise. That would be an unreasonable intrusion into the lives of women, and to that extent, they are entitled to a certain amount of privacy.
The 1st amendment speaks of freedom of association, the 4th amendment speaks of unreasonable searches and seizures.
https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/reso … t-privacy/
A little lengthy but it speaks about the right to be left alone which has to be a foundation of any free society. Do the ladies expect the Government in their business on the search for fertilized eggs within their wombs? Where is the line drawn between public concern and personal privacy? I believe that Roe established this as a reasonable compromise.
States Rights are not an absolute as many states codified policies of racial bias and bigotry in their anti miscegenation laws 1960s (unauthorized association between members of different races). I don't care what the state legislators said, the Constitution and Bill of Rights take precedence. Those laws were to be repealed regardless of state legislatures.
So before the court decides to upend legal precedent established 50 years ago, they need to recognize the bag of worms involved. This reversal would basically undo feminism and the attainment of women within this society in the last half century. Do you think that they are prepared to go back to an "Ozzie and Harriet" world without a fight? The protests are already here and the voices will just increase in volume.
The Court, while following the letter of the law need to consider the consequences that this issue has; the potential of tearing this country apart. The Left will not tolerate it while the Right will go far beyond restrictions within their own jurisdiction but will punish women for self medicating of seeking abortions in Blue States. What would be the Constitutional crisis that would ensue over that? I will need a front row seat. Blue states have expressed a desire to thwart Red States and their laws by offering abortion services and going out of their way to offer the assistance to bring them to a safe legal haven.
This divide will get all the deeper....Credence, totally concur w/this. There is a reason why there is federal law. Federal law is codified to be applied nationwide & it also supercedes state law. State law can be subjective while federal law can be objective. Roe vs Wade should remain a federal law. God help us if each state decides the outcome of Roe vs Wade. There are states who would either severely restrict or even ban abortion, especially the more retrogressive states. Of course this reversal would undo feminism & the remarkable progress which women made. Americans are smart for the most part. America WON'T let this reversal occur. Americans will fight this. I know I will- I am staunchly pro-choice.
Your thought sounds like you agree that the Court is there to follow the "letter of the law," but only as long as its decisions don't cause a problem with what people want. That doesn't sound like a very supreme court to me, it sounds like a popularity-judging panel.
You can't have it both ways. Either the Court rules on the law or the wants of 'the people', (but only your people?).
GAWhat is the letter of the law? Seems like we established that some 50 years ago.
Their interpretation is just that, not some sort of infallible absolute that you seem to imply. Supreme Court rulings have been found to have been erroneous in the past. There just better be a damned good reason to reverse Roe vs Wade.
So, ok, let the court "interpret", but expect and anticipate repercussions regardless. We all have to comply with the law of the land but the war between blue and red states will escalate if the court does not consider its discretion carefully. Particularly, in an issue as contentious as this one,Justice Alito's opinion basically comes down to the argument that abortion rights cannot be found in the constitution therefore it can be struck down. But guess What other things can't be found in the Constitution? A whole heck of a lot. Think about it. Buckle up folks We are in for a bumpy ride as This reasoning will be used to energize the culture wars. Just think of all of the "settled" law that can be undone because it isn't enumerated specifically in our 200-year-old document.
Yeah, what you said. I agree the "letter of the law" is the Court's guiding principle. It is that guide that should determine their 'interpretation' of what the letter of the law means.
Most of all I agree that the key point of argument is the argument of what is the "letter of the law." I am not arguing the Court is right, or wrong in this decision, I am just arguing that they are doing their job as it was envisioned—as an arbiter of the law, not social norms.
GA
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pinpointed these concerns at oral arguments in December. In Casey and Roe, the court said there is "inherent in our structure" the understanding that there are "personal decisions that belong to individuals and the states can't intrude on them." Then she listed cases concerning the right to contraception and the right to marry and said that "none of those things are written in the Constitution."
"They have all," she said, "been discerned from the structure of the Constitution."
Roe wasn't decided in a vacuum; it's part of a larger understanding of the Constitution that recognizes a right to privacy in text that doesn't expressly identify it.
There's a majority of justices no longer willing to recognize such a right in the context of abortion. indeed, who believe the court should never have recognized it. That will likely call into question those other rights as well.
The Constitution says nothing about a right to same-sex marriage. The belief that if the Constitution doesn't specifically in writing outline that right, i.e. the right to privacy, then all of those rights that have been affirmed for us that are based on the right to privacy under the 14th Amendment are at risk.I am on the side of citizens being able to determine their own laws.
I wonder how many on the left have actually read the opinion? I don't think many.
Here is how is ends ""The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and the Casey decision abrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives."
Why is the left so afraid of people governing themselves?
I believe it is because the left does not believe in democracy. They want authoritarian rule to enforce their decisions on Americans who don't believe it or wan it.
That is what upsets the left the most. If Roe v Wade is overturned, then people in each state will have the freedom to decide the issue for themselves. It is this freedom that scares those on the left the most. Freedom has always been a threat to them, I believe communists think the say way. I can see the similarities.What is more authoritarian than a government dictating control over your own body? Remember all of those who railed against government asking them to put a paper cloth over their mouth and nose? Some act as if abortion is being forced on them. It's very simple, If you don't believe in abortion don't have one. I do not think that government has the power to restrict access to the procedure that some may choose to seek in a defined period of time.
Again, Many other civil rights were decided based upon the same legal threads that flow through Roe. This will open up a great big Pandora's box for government to further intrude on privacy rights.
Roe hinged its case on Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 decision. It involved a due process liberty clause that includes "a right to privacy over intimate decision-making" involving contraception. Justice Alito's argument, presumably, could be applied to the right to privacy in contraception. Gay marriage and civil rights also rest upon Roe. I'd bet the farm on Governor DeSantis almost immediately drafting legislation banning gay marriage and limiting rights.
In terms of states deciding who can choose specific medical care, I don't want my neighbor deciding that for me."What is more authoritarian than a government dictating control over your own body?"
You mean like requiring people put an experimental drug into their bodies so they can participate in society norms? That was a time when the left was against body autonomy. More hypocrisy.
"I do not think that government has the power to restrict access to the procedure that some may choose to seek in a defined period of time."
It is the government's responsibility to prevent murder. Can we agree on that? Innocent lives should be protected by the government. With abortion, an innocent life is on the line.
Griswold v. Connecticut? Doesn't involve the taking of an innocent life. So, it's not a good analogy. Again, I don't think gay marriage involves the taking of an innocent life, so it is another poor analogy.
"In terms of states deciding who can choose specific medical care, I don't want my neighbor deciding that for me."
Your neighbor chooses many things for you such as who takes office, the laws that are passed to determine what is and is not legal, how money is spent, and more.
That is the price you pay for living in representative republic and not a communist regime. In Noth Korea, the state decides everything without the input of opposite opinions.
Is that the type of government that would make you more comfortable?Griswold v. Connecticut? Doesn't involve the taking of an innocent life. So, it's not a good analogy.
Actually it's a direct link. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects the liberty of married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction.
Although the U.S. Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority, "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship." Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the ruling. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
These rights of parental autonomy are underpinnings of the right to privacy; marriage is included in this. In a later case, the state says "marriage [and] procreation are basic civil rights of man.”
Does this sound familiar? Roe is predicated on this. This is why I am saying we will see more of our rights attacked because they are not specifically enumerated by the constitution, only implied.
Gay rights, contraceptives, certain fertility treatments and even interracial marriage are imperiled because they’re all rooted in that right to privacy.
I'm sorry but your argument about murder and killing infants isn't reasonable in my opinion.
Currently, states are banning abortions before a fetus can survive outside the womb.
Again, in the spirit of being egalitarian would you support a government mandate for young boys to receive vasectomies. I mean if the concern is really all about abortion, Should we not look at every aspect of prevention since politicians have shown that they don't trust women to have autonomy over their own bodies. Wouldn't that be a piece to solving the problem?
Or how about forced implantation of birth control for young girls? Again if the concern is for abortion. How far are you willing to go."Actually it's a direct link."
Just don't see it.
"Gay rights, contraceptives, certain fertility treatments and even interracial marriage are imperiled because they’re all rooted in that right to privacy. "
Don't see a real drive or effort to change any of those.
Again, you're missing the point. None of those involve the taking of an innocent life. That is the reason abortion is such a strong issue for people who value life.There is no evidence anywhere of the 20-week-old fetus surviving outside the womb. At 22 to 24 weeks they have an infinitesimally small chance of surviving outside the womb. A 24-week-old fetus would need extraordinary care to survive and the inevitability of physical and a host of catastrophic medical conditions is almost certain.
And as soon as Roe falls I guarantee you will see an all out assault on the other rights that were predicated or stood on the Roe precedent. Roe does not exist as an island, over its existence other rights we're given based on the same interpretation of the constitution. Of course they will be attacked."And as soon as Roe falls I guarantee you will see an all out assault on the other rights that were predicated or stood on the Roe precedent. Roe does not exist as an island, over its existence other rights we're given based on the same interpretation of the constitution. Of course they will be attacked."
You are again missing the main point that makes those in the pro-life movement so determined. This is the taking of an innocent, helpless life. You are for it, I am against it.
The rest of the stuff really isn't important and nobody really cares. That is just your lack of knowledge and understanding of conservatives speaking.You're making a case based on emotion not fact. I suppose I can assume that is "conservative speak" very interestingly though, do you know how Republican representatives and senators are not coming out and praising The ideas behind the leak draft? They're focusing on the leak. They won't answer direct questions. Republican Party has been working toward this for decades but they seem shell shocked. Own it already
"You're making a case based on emotion not fact."
I think it is the left who is doing this very thing. It is a fact that abortion takes an innocent, helpless life. That is undisputable.
"They're focusing on the leak. They won't answer direct questions."
That's right. The SCOTUS should be able to provide their opinions on issues without worry of it going public. This leak has made their job much more difficult. It is probably not the only draft on the issue. I'm sure no dissenting opinions will get leaked. So, yes, discovering the source of the leak is essential.
What I don't understand about this pro-life movement is that they are against abortion. But have no problems with weapons and arms.
Is it not that more people are killed by the gun every year than by abortion (if you can compare a 5 week life of a human with a 20 year old?...)
Should the pro-life movement not protest against the NRA?
Every day in the US there is a mass shooting. So what about first banning guns from the street?
As a European, I find it incredibly difficult to find the logic behind protesting against abortion but having no problems with owning guns (as a constitutional right!!)"So what about first banning guns from the street?"
Why? Under the unproven, and false, assumption that guns are the cause of American violence? That doesn't even make sense.Well, your statistics are a bit off. There are usually around 30,000 gun related deaths in the United States every year and over 65% of those deaths are suicides.
There are over 900,000 abortions performed in the US every year.
You are also not taking into account the number of shootings done in self defense. Around 1,600 bad guys are killed each year by people defending themselves.
This isn't taking into consideration police related shootings, accidents, etc.
As an European you are confused. Are you telling me you can't tell the difference between killing a helpless innocent human and defending yourself against bad guys trying to kill you?
If so, I think logic is beyond you.Yes I don't understand that guns are legal. Guns are made for killing living beings. Somebody who is pro-life should be against guns.
As a pro´-life at least you should be consequent and be against war, against the death penalty and against murder weapons like guns.
And be a vegan too to be honest. Pro-life means pro- life and against murder of humans or animals for whatever reason.
That's my logic.Oh no, you misunderstand the thinking in this country. Pro-life only extends to embryos. There is absolutely no concern or support for these babies who are tossed aside when they are born. They're really just political fodder. Also The belief is that guns should be free reign, unregulated, open carry with No bothersome regulation.
And also, pro-lifers who are based in religion have no problem executing incarcerated individuals. There's a lot of hypocrisy but also many people here are under the control of partisan politicians.Such a shame. Yes I suddenly remember a sketch from George Carlin about pro-life.
George Carlin - Abortion
As he puts it: Pro-Life people are not pro life but anti womenNice touch, Peter, as always Carlin is directly on target...
Pro-life people are DANGEROUS. They are ANTI-WOMAN, they are against birth control as well as abortion. They want women barefoot & pregnant. They are the quiverful movement.
Again, Grace, you have spoken about self reliance and "everyone for themselves" and have literally got into bed with the Right on economic issues. But how fair is it when you are expected to compete barefoot and pregnant while manacled to the bedpost?
You should realize that Rightwing economics and social issue values are inseparable and it only means that "opportunity" is restricted only to their preferred few.Ya'll have lost it!
I've just left the hospital, where twin girls were just born to my daughter and her husband. Their 4th and 5th. He is a Paramedic/firefighter, she is an RN, they alternate shifts so that one is always with the kids. When there is a conflict, they have family to call on.
It's not complicated. It's such a beautiful thing and y'all make it so ugly. I am shaking with some of these comments I have read. Maybe I should be done at HP, I probably should have been done on the forums long, long ago!
Ab out, it's your lucky day!!!Congratulations! Blessed... Don't break brains with good common sense.
Enjoy your weekend.Thanks Sharlee, they are beautiful and perfect little creations!
Really, AB, you don't want to come across as so fragile. I need your challenges and opposition regarding the common issues of the day. Responding keeps my skills honed.
How long have I endured the denigration of the Democrats, the left and liberals? And, I am the preeminent one here. But, I take my sharpened pen and sally forth....". . . take my sharpened pen and sally forth...."
Gonna sally forth are ya. Look, I beginning to wonder if maybe you walked through a cloud of wacky-tabaky, (unknowingly, of course). You're making this too easy bud.
I will 'sally forth' with you. Relative to the comments on this thread, I agree with AB's comment. "Ya'll have lost your minds."
There are no 'facts' to argue in this issue, so there can only be arguments of views, beliefs, and perceptions. That's fine, sometimes that is all that is possible. So we argue about it. We don't 'sally forth'. ;-)
Your 'fragile' thought was right though, I agree. ♫ 'one out of three ain't bad' ♫
GAI don't agree, well that is fine, but is so conservative of you to dismiss the approaches and opinion of others merely because they don't register for you.
My terms and words are accurate and describes what I am thinking at the moment. Unfortunately, I am not literate in Ebonics.
I am not afraid of alternate ideas and just try to be encouraging even to my opponents, do I get a high five for that?
What do you mean by no facts? Beliefs, views and perceptions are why we all have different opinions and that is the basis of discussion and debate. Pretty dull if all there were nothing here but Rightwingers patting each other on the back.
But I will take the one out three that you offer....Now you're warming up. But, what do you mean "what do I mean" about the lack of facts in this 'choice, no-choice' issue? Do you know of some facts that prove one side over the other?
And, where did I dismiss other views, (whether they registered or not)? I probably have the same view as you do regarding pro-choice. So, if I was dismissing any view it would be the conservative one you are also dismissing.
And . . . that ebonics quip was unnecessary. That reaction makes me think you don't want anyone sallying forth with you.
You jumped to defend stuff I didn't attack, or criticize, (maybe the "ya'll' thing was taken as an attack, it wasn't meant to be)
This time you're the one that got on the wrong train, I was just poking you about your "sally forth". Who the hell 'sallys forth'?
Now, I'm thinking about taking back that one and pencil you in at 0 out of 3.
GA"Now you're warming up. But, what do you mean "what do I mean" about the lack of facts in this 'choice, no-choice' issue? Do you know of some facts that prove one side over the other?"
Isn't that what this is all about, why the country is up an arms, today? I am certain of one thing, that the antichoice elimination of Roe is going to be source of trouble if this is all just relegated to the states. We can discuss that.
-----------
Ok, you are pro-choice then. It is like I told you before, moderate and conservatism are contradictory concepts in today's political mileau. They are so few of you that you virtually have no voice in this debate.
Don't berate me for my adept use of the King's English, and I won't need to throw in a quip.
It is ok to poke but with you, it is hard to tell the difference sometimes. But, I am good, if you are...
I deserve all 3 pencils....". . . my adept use of the King's English."
Stop, stop, you're killing me. Wait, *mimicks wiping grin from face*.
Okay, okay, I'm okay now.
I agree with you that the states' handling of this power that may be handed to them is a potentially dangerous situation. And there are more than a few states that come to mind as potential radiation zones. I think current Republican politics are earning your 'Right-winger' denigration, (your favorite word).
As a side note, it's a good thing that you can never be really sure about those jabs. Some are intended to be that way. Send a message with a grin, or with denigration, (look, I squeezed it in again ;-) )? I like the grin method.
But, just to keep you on your toes, sometimes those jabs don't have a message, sometimes they're just a response to an opened door that is begging me to sally through.
And yeah, I'm good. This isn't a one-way thing.
GA
One of the twins was struggling, so the babies were delivered early. I was waiting impatiently, decided to go through my mail and such. Caught enough of the conversation here at HP to make me more angry than sad.
But, call me what you will, "fragile" whatever, I have heard them all and I really don't care what you think!Excuse me, I thought that that was a comment of encouragement...
Why get angry, you know that there can be little common ground between our political poles?No, if you were attempting to be encouraging, you would have asked me how they were doing.
"Pro-life only extends to embryos."
Then how do you explain 8 states legalizing late-term abortions?
"And also, pro-lifers who are based in religion have no problem executing incarcerated individuals."
Don't worry, if someone kills you or people you love...I will support their incarceration and/or execution.
Very succinct. Protesting against abortion yet believe in owning guns which kill FULLY FORMED people.
Yes, Credence. Those who support anti-abortion are conservative/rightist males & gender traitors. No right thinking, logical person would be anti-abortion. I support a woman's right to reproductive freedom which includes abortion. Remember Credence, those who are against abortion are somehow or subconsciously against birth control.
Yeah, Grace, I have suspected the same.
The Right will never be satisfied with imposing restrictions within their own states, but will find a way to control the egress of women seeking abortions in states where it is legal. A "Logan's Run" or a "Fahrenheit 451" scenario will have to be in place by the State to identify which women are pregnant and restrict access to abortion inducing drugs, follow them around to make sure that they do not attempt to vacate the state for another.
The point is that they will NEVER be satisfied just prohibiting the practice within their jurisdiction, but wants to control the woman and her options even if they have to tie her up.
Sounds draconian, it is, but the Right is capable of just such an outrage.
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?
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.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.
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.And the unwanted babies who will be forced into the world only to be abused and neglected their entire childhood by their "parent" or The ones who will be shifted to a very lacking foster care system, often moving in and out of homes monthly. In this country, couples who have money order designer babies through clinics or seek more healthy babies from specific countries. Sad reality but we don't adopt our unwanted babies here. And let's be realistic, who is going to take on the care of a baby We forced a crack addicted mom to give birth to? We all do, through a system of social services that is constantly being starved of funding and attacked. This is perpetuating a vicious cycle.
"And the unwanted babies who will be forced into the world only to be abused and neglected their entire childhood by their "parent" or The ones who will be shifted to a very lacking foster care system, often moving in and out of homes monthly."
Guess what? The same thing happens to many children who are born into the world. Not all children born in bad circumstances become bad people. There are also many people who came from loving homes who became criminals.
So, the circumstances of a person's birth is not a very legitimate argument to kill them.But who is going to care for the crack-addicted baby? And who is going to pay for it. Are you willing to pay for this baby? Or for the methadon for the mother?
If you are against abortion you have to be willing to pay more for your healthcare system. As it's more expensive to let some people live in misery than to be merciful and not give them a life they won't miss."But who is going to care for the crack-addicted baby? And who is going to pay for it. Are you willing to pay for this baby? Or for the methadon for the mother?"
At this point in the United States, it's the federal government who pays for it. There are many government programs that are designed to address these issues.
A child condemned to death for the actions of it's father? Can you expand on that concept and reasoning? It may have been acceptable in biblical times, it may be acceptable today in some other countries, but I certainly do not like seeing it proposed in this country. Or yours.
That's nice, comparing animals to humans...so is that your cut-off, up to 9 weeks old and then what, they have "more conscience" than a cow? So no abortion after 9 weeks?
I hope you'll consider applying to be a foster parent and take in some of these babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome, catastrophic physical and behavioral challenges and crack addiction. The the compensation is meager but the reward is great especially for someone who is a follower of Jesus. Actually, I would like to see conservatives have a program of a one for one adoption or lifelong care for every unwanted, uncared for baby out there. I'd like to see that policy.
Good for you Faye, I respect all foster parents, it is definitely a calling, as is the priesthood, the missionary field, Doctors without borders, etc. By Monday, I will be grandmother to five; my daughter will need all the help she can get. She is having twin girls. One weighs 1 lb more than her sister {future bragging rights} their heartbeats are strong. Three heartbeats within one body is an extraordinary thing to listen to. It's a wonderful thing being a Mom, but this "Gramma" thing is something else entirely. I love it!
I pray blessings over you and yours, they are fortunate to have you!
"I would like to see conservatives have a program of a one for one adoption or lifelong care for every unwanted, uncared for baby out there. "
Are you saying adoption programs are based on political affiliation? Are you also stating that these adoption programs are only from liberals?
Do you have any idea how many Catholic adoption agencies exist?The number of children in U.S. foster care is at a staggering 700,000, more than 223,000 of whom are considered to be waiting children available for adoption. More than 60% of children in foster care spend 3 to 5 years in the system before being adopted. Almost 30% spend 5 or more years in foster care before being adopted. Some never get adopted.
With more kids being placed into the system, there are less homes for these children to stay. That’s why we read stories of children in foster care who are sleeping in offices of case workers or hotel rooms with the case workers because there aren’t enough foster homes for these children. The foster care system is just being overwhelmed.
Additionally, around 53,000 kids in the foster care system age out of the system every year. Many of those kids have no permanent placements lined up when they turn 18 and become homeless. Some of them enter other institutions
The U.S. foster care system includes children of every age, race, ethnic group, and socioeconomic category. Some children are waiting alone and others are waiting with siblings. These children enter foster care through no fault of their own. Oftentimes, these children are the victims of child abuse, neglect, and/or abandonment. Many have behavioral and psychological as well as physical issues. They are removed from their homes because their birth family has proven unable or unwilling to provide a safe environment for them. At the same time, it is important to note that on average, every 25 minutes, according to studies, a baby is born suffering from opiate withdrawals. I would like to see solutions for these children. If you want to bring them into the world then you need to see them through the world. Currently it is not happening In any meaningful manner.
If you're going to force a woman to carry a baby to term and deliver I'm going to need more of a plan for that child afterward.Thank you, these anti-abortionists refuse to think. It is far more humane for a woman to have an abortion than to have a child & give it up for adoption. I believe that Roe vs Wade should remain a constitutional law, it should NEVER be a state position. There are states that are atavistic in nature while there are more progressive/humane states. Laws exists so that states that are more retrogressive don't regress into implementing backward laws that imperil people's quality of life & access to abortion affects women's quality of lives. Abortion should remain legal & it should remain a CONSTITUTIONAL law which applies STATEWIDE.
It's a good comparison.
A cow or pig is far more smarter then an embryo of 8 months.
Would I advise an abortion in the 8 months time. No.
But I find it strange that people have no qualms with slaughtering a cow and eating a hamburger but have a problem with removing a 6 week not fully grown human.Well you're on to something there in terms of education. Remember way back when in drivers education courses where they would show the outcomes of horrendous accidents? This idea is also akin to the "scared straight" programs of the past. Not sure of the overall effectiveness but I think you're right it would hit some where it needs to. An ounce of prevention.
It could benefit from decreasing the numbers. So, many women have multiple abortions. When admitting a patient to the hospital, questions are asked of a female --- how many pregnancies, how many live births, the circumstances of aborted births. Multiple abortions are very common.
This is why I dwell on education. We could cut down on the number of abortions and perhaps come to a point where they are not required.
.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
GAAh 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.
"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.
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.
Just as it used to be before before abortions were legalised.
Exactly, that is why so many women died or suffered damages.
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......"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.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.....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.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"
"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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Justice Roberts verified the authenticity of the leak. And they will be investigating how the leak happened.
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.
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.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.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.
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.pdfThirteen 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.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.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.
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.
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.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.
Bless your heart, you want a bromo for that indigestion?
GA ;-)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?"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?"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?
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.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.
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.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."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.
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-abortionThe 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."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.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....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.
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 TwoIslandBites, 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.
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=ufi6QUKe2TgI 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/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.It also protects people if a child outside of the womb is killed for "non-pregnancy" related issues. It is infantcide.
The propaganda article you posted is from May. But maybe they forgot to check/read before they made it.
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 2223Now, 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.
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.
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.”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-2022-5I 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.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!"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."We are talking about rights that are protected by the constitution".
Which rights are you referring to Faye?
The Right to Life?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.
"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."
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.
It's not my interpretation. It's the interpretation and ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States 1973 Roe v Wade.
That's what I said, "a flimsy interpretation".
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.
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.
While on the subject of privacy. Do the Supreme Court Justices have the right to privacy?
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.
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?
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.
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".
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.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.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."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."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?"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."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."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.That's one hellava Doom's Day scenario. It might compete with the one of Putin going nuclear.
GAI guess you're not a Trump supporter then.
I'll leave that quip standing, I don't want to start another Trump tangent.
GA ;-)
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?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.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.....
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.
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.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.
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/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/So horrific Savvy, but it is all about them, so what do they care!?
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.
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 … scarriagesWell 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!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.
"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."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
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.”Can you summarize? I'm not able to read due to the paywall.
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.”
Related Discussions
- 32
Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade
by IslandBites 2 years ago
More than 2 dozen states to restrict abortions after Roe v Wade overturned in Dobbs decisionThirteen states in the country are poised to enact immediate abortion bans and at least 13 more could quickly follow suit after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday, leaving abortion rights up...
- 445
Roe v Wade has been Overturned
by Angie B Williams 2 years ago
I, personally, have been speaking out against Roe v. Wade since I was a young teenager in 1973. I've never wavered. I've never backed down, even when I was the only one in the room, defending precious LIFE! Now the matter of abortion goes back to the States, where it always belonged. Again,...
- 186
Progressives: Don't be fooled, the GOP wants a national abortion ban
by Credence2 4 months ago
Republicans always want to take a mile when they are given an inch. Conservatives cheer with the overturn of Roe vs Wade, saying it was a victory for States Rights. So the Red States double down creating a Handsmaiden's Tale environment for its residents. But that has not been enough. Trump remains...
- 8
The Reversal of Roe v. Wade
by Sychophantastic 8 years ago
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, should women who get illegal abortions be subject to the death penalty? Doesn't it follow that overturning Roe v. Wade would confirm that abortion is murder and that a woman who gets an abortion is a murderer? Therefore, the death penalty would apply.
- 695
The Disatorous Ramifications of the Deadly Reversal of Roe vs Wade.
by Scott Belford 7 weeks ago
The Conservatives on the Supreme Court stuck a knife in the back of all Americans with their decision to ignore stare decises and overturn Roe. Besides stripping women of a fundemental right to control their own body (now, in some states, a 13-year old rape victim with be FORCED to carry the...
- 28
We Must Rise Up To Force Accountability Using A Diversity Of Tactics
by Sharlee 2 years ago
Left-wing activist groups are planning to send protesters to the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices following a leak indicating the court may soon overturn Roe v. Wade.The activists are organizing under the moniker "Ruth Sent Us" and have published the supposed home addresses of...