A VERY DARK Day in America-The OVERTURNING of Roe vs Wade

1. 85

   gmwilliamsposted 22 months ago

   
   Roe vs Wade was overthrown by the Supreme Court.  It was voted on by SIX EXTREMIST justices.   It was decided that the state should have jurisdiction over its abortion laws.  Well, some states elected to either reduce or even considering banning abortion.  However, there are people who adamantly refuse to succumb to this tyranny.  They want full reproductive choice.  I saw on the news how pro-lifers are cheering- one of them indicated that it is THE GOAL to make ABORTION ILLEGAL in America. Are we going to return to the Dark Ages?  This overturning of Roe vs Wade is a very dark precedent & a slippery slope.  Your thoughts on this?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      First, the Court did not decide that the state should have jurisdiction; it decided that the federal govt. does NOT have the authority.
      
      Second, if the people wish, abortion can be banned or allowed or allowed with restrictions.  Unlike the first decision 50 years ago it will be the people making the decision this time, not a court twisting the Constitution into saying something it does not.
      
      I do, however, expect a flurry of lawsuits when states attempt to control their citizens beyond what they have the jurisdiction to do...such as what a person does in an adjoining state.  State's citizens are not slaves and do not "belong" to the state in any possible world.  States do not have the authority to determine what a person does when they are not geographically under the laws of that state.
      
      I hope, anyway.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

         "I do, however, expect a flurry of lawsuits when states attempt to control their citizens beyond what they have the jurisdiction to do...such as what a person does in an adjoining state.  State's citizens are not slaves and do not "belong" to the state in any possible world.  States do not have the authority to determine what a person does when they are not geographically under the laws of that state.
         
         I hope, anyway."
         ----
         I hope for such as well, but don't think the anti-choice forces won't try.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            I am sure they will, just as the anti-gun forces will never stop trying to enforce their concepts on everyone.
            
            The urge to control others, and force them to do as we wish is strong.  Whether blue, red or even purple, the force is strong.

            replyreport
      2. 87

         MizBejabbersposted 22 months agoin reply to this

         "First, the Court did not decide that the state should have jurisdiction; it decided that the federal govt. does NOT have the authority."
         
         As the kids back in my elementary school used to say: "Same difference." And everything I've heard and read so far says that the SCOTUS sent the issue back to the states to make their own respective decisions. Same difference.
         
         But I do like the way you softened your answer that "State's citizens are not slaves and do not "belong to the state" in any possible world." I agree with you. The rest of my answer is not aimed at you, but strictly my own opinion.
         
         This is definitely a religious issue and a violation of First Amendment rights of the person who does not believe the way the so-called "pro-lifers" do. Hint: the First Amendment allegedly guarantees both Freedom of Religion and Freedom From Religion. It begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...."
         Some people interpret that the amendment only states that an official religion can't be established, but that isn't really true.
         
         Women are being subjected to the religionists viewpoint. Pro-lifers say: "We're just stopping the killing of babies because life begins at conception." That's a religionist's viewpoint. My belief system, and that of many others, doesn't believe that. We believe life begins at birth or whenever the body can sustain its own life and accommodate the soul. (And scientists haven't been able to prove either of us wrong.) I'm just glad I'm too old to have a dog in that fight, but my granddaughter and her peers are not. (And I might add that she lives in Texas! But my State of Arkansas is just as narrow minded.)
         
         But getting back to the state's issue. Using Arkansas as an example, less than a generation ago, we had a very influential legislator who was a pig farmer. Fortunately, Roe v Wade was in effect, and had they wanted to, he and his ilk couldn't dictate what women could and could not do with their bodies. (He, by the way, spent time in prison for corruption.)
         
         Do you really believe that women's reproductive rights should be left up to pig farmers, insurance agents, preachers, small business owners and other "salt of the earth" legislators and not a woman and her doctor? I guess the pig farmer did know a little about breeding, probably more than the six conservative justices on the SCOTUS. But what woman wants to be compared to a pig.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            gmwilliamsposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            Totally agree.   These "justices" are forcing their religious view regarding abortion on others.  This isn't a theocracy- there is separation of church & state.

            replyreport
            1. 87

               MizBejabbersposted 22 months agoin reply to this

               Not anymore, Grace, if it ever was. I read an article yesterday either on Reuters or AP, but I think it was Reuters. Somebody had researched the opinions of the SCOTUS, and they have a history of extreme conservatism going back to Thomas Jefferson. Think about it. At one time an African American only counted as 3/5 of a person during the census. While the Constitution didn't actually mention slavery, that was definitely the connotation. I've never seen it refer to white indentured servants. Somebody please correct me if you have. When we were taught history in school back in the mid 20th Century, they were so busy rah rahing the white men who established this country that they failed to mention their warts.
               
               But then again, you specifically mentioned the separation of church and state (apples). I think I just muddied the water by mentioning their extremely conservative view (oranges.) Our forefathers did a very good job of keeping the Constitution secular. Today's government is trying to become a theocracy by defending the rights of the Christians and their "Great Commission" verse in the bible. I grew up in a Southern Baptist church, so I know all about that. I don't want to see my tax dollars go to religious institutions like in the case of school vouchers. I think in one case they justified it by ruling that there wasn't a high school within a reasonable distance of the community. That was in Maine. However, about 30 years ago, governments were having no problem shutting down community schools and consolidating them in rural areas. That resulted in students being bused for one to two hours (or more) each way. It took some doing on the part of the parents in these rural communities to get that stopped.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  Isn't a Supreme Court Justice, almost by definition, a Conservative?  Their task, after all, is to interpret the law as it is, not as they might wish it was.  Maintain the status quo, then, and isn't that what conservatives are noted for?

                  replyreport
2. 79

   emgeposted 22 months ago

   Hades? Perhaps it is in America with rampant gun killings and now this abortion mess.

   replyreport
   1. 92

      Nathanvilleposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      Very much my sentiment.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         MizBejabbersposted 22 months agoin reply to this

         Kind of ironic, isn't it? The very people who claim to want to stop the killing of unborn humans are giving more freedom to the existing humans to kill life. Those AR 15s aren't for duck hunting. Hypocrites.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            gmwilliamsposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            Exactly, it is beyond INSANE.   Insane isn't the apt word- IT IS EVIL BEYOND COMPARE.

            replyreport