The Disatorous Ramifications of the Deadly Reversal of Roe vs Wade.

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 53 discussions (595 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 23 months 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 baby), it has much wider ramifications regarding any Supreme Court ruling that recognizes an American's Right to Privacy.

    Effectively, this Court said that no American has any Right to Privacy under the federal Constitution!!!  Imagine the import of that!

    In the Declaration of Independence, upon which our Constitution is founded, it talks,.   about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. How can ANY reasonable person argue that an individual's Right to Privacy is not implied?  Yet the Conservatives  on the Court ruled that it is not!

    Our Constitution starts out, on purpose with this declarion of intent -

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.  I have to ask,what reasonable person can argue that the individual Right to Privacy is not implied in those words?  We know who tries and did - Conservatives.

    Clarance Thomas took the opportunity to tell the world what Conservatices are going after next:

    - what you do in your bedroom;

    - your genetics, if you happen to be LGBTQ;

    - your love, if it happens to be for someone of the same sex

    They may now do these unimaginable things to:

    - Restict where a woman can travel

    - Restrict what a person can order through mail

    - Force doctors to move if they want to practice without fear of being jailed

    - Force fertility clinics to shut down

    - Restrict to what or whom you may donate money

    - Restrict the advise you can give women

    - Open women, and probably others, to have thier communications searched

    - Restrict who you may drive across a state line

    and dozens of other unAmerican things and all because Conservatives want to control your business and FORCE you to follow their archaic religious moral code.

    What a very scary and sad place we live in now because Conservatices can't mind their own business.

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/politics … index.html

    1. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, the goal of Conservatives is to keep women barefoot & pregnant.  Conservative men are threatened by modernity in all aspects.  They want to return to more delineated times when Blacks, women, LBGTQ, & other people "were in their so-called place."   Conservative men are especially threatened by sexually liberated women.  They want to punish women for being sexual.  It is a scary place but progressive Americans are going to fight the regressives.

    2. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Prior to Roe, conservatives prosecuted women who received an illegal abortion.  A 22-year old woman whose life was in jeopardy due to her pregnancy (as it was in a previous one) had an abortion to save her life.  She was found guilty of manslaughter.

      This is where we are today.  Women will die due to Thomas, Alito, and Conservatives.

  2. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 23 months ago

    'Supreme Court pushes divided nation closer to breaking point with new fights over abortion"

    So True

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/28/politics … index.html

  3. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
    Kathleen Cochranposted 23 months ago

    Abortion rates decline everywhere it is legalized. It was never about saving the unborn. It was about imposing religious beliefs on others - usually those less fortunate. Where is the christianity in that?

    1. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      THANK YOU, KATHLEEN.  We have SIX Taliban justices.

    2. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      I am purposefully NOT Christian, but I do distinguish between thoughtful Christians who actually believe in what they think Jusus is teaching and those who abuse and distort his message.  In my mind, evangelicals and fundamentalists are not real Christians.  They are just a dangerous cult.

      1. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
        Kathleen Cochranposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        I have a relationship with God because of the sacrifice Jesus made on my behalf. All that is asked of me is to live by the example of Jesus' life while he was here among us. What did he say about abortion? Nothing recorded. What did he say about government? Pay your taxes. Everything else was for us to treat others as we would want them to treat us. Feed the hungry. Care for the sick. Welcome the stranger. Take in the homeless . . . to give just a few examples. If you can find that kind of activity within your political party, choices about who you vote for become easier.

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Hence my comment about evangelicals and fundamentalists.  They oppose feeding the hungry (at least with your tax dollars), they oppose the gov't helping those who can't afford it to get health insurance.  They tell strangers to stay away, we don't want you.

          Clearly, evangelicals and fundamentalists do not listen to Jesus.

  4. Credence2 profile image78
    Credence2posted 23 months ago

    "And because G.O.P. extremism is fed by resentment against the very things that, as I see it, truly make America great — our diversity, our tolerance for difference — it cannot be appeased or compromised with. It can only be defeated."

    Paul Krugman of the New York Times...

    1. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 23 months agoin reply to this

      Credence2, we have the TALIBAN here-the six Supreme Court justices.

  5. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 23 months ago

    You know what this retrograde decision striking down the right to privacy at the federal level and the scramble by some states to subjugate women other states to protect women reminds me of?  1787!

    One of the events which drove our founders to write our Consitution was the fighting between states which was ever so slowly leading to a civil war.

    It is becoming harder to differentiate between the Maryland - Pennsylvania fight in 1787 and what is starting to take shape between such backward looking states like Texas and Oklahoma and those states who actually believe in personal liberty like California, Oregon, and Washington.

  6. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    After you read Alito's dissent, you'll understand why I think he is a very, very scary man.

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents … n-abortion

    1. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      There coming after the "pill" next. They could not resist the opportunity to tie us all down to their phony and exasperating ethics.

      I am just waiting for enough people to realize that THEY are crossing the line, or will they?

      1. gmwilliams profile image84
        gmwilliamsposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        They AREN'T coming after the pill-such hyperbole.

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          I meant the pill that a woman can take after to induce an abortion, the one that the Supreme Court is reserving for a decision regarding.

        2. profile image55
          Perpetuallybannedposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Deleted

          1. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            I wouldn't be surprised if Thomas votes to reverse the ruling that allowed whites and blacks to marry.  Can you imagine that it was ONLY 60 some odd years ago that it became legal over the very loud and violent objections of conservatives.

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

              What would make Thomas think that his interracial marriage would stand within that universe?

        3. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          One of the functions of "the pill" is to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.  Without that implantation in the uterine wall it will be aborted; the murder of a human life.

          Bet your booty it is on the list, just not the public one yet.

          1. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Hadn't thought of that, but it is so true - that is the way these social conservatives see it.

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              That is the way that the far Christian right sees it.  Not social conservatives particularly.  Although I know many conservatives, and many Christians (both liberal and conservative) I don't know a single one that would take that stance.  Only those of the far radical right do, at least in my experience.

          2. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
            Kathleen Cochranposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            Human life begins at conception is not in the Bible. Genesis 2:7 "God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into man the breath of life, and man became a living soul." This happens long after conception. Not just a life. A human life different from the animals.

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              "A human life different from the animals."

              How so?  Outside of the fable from millennia in the past, how is the human species, in general, different than any other animal?

      2. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        I wouldn't be surprised because hardline social conservatives oppose all types of contraception except MAYBE the rhythm method.

  7. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    Methinks it is time to impeach this aberrant Trump judge and help save America.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/21/politics … index.html

    1. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      We need to get rid of Uncle Clerance as well.

      1. gmwilliams profile image84
        gmwilliamsposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        No, we need to get rid of Biden.  Clarence is a small fry in comparison to Biden.

      2. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Alito and Thomas want to turn America back to when Thomas would be a slave again.  Why? Because a strict reading of the original Constitution does not prohibit slavery.  I am not sure they even recognize any amendments after the first 10.

  8. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
    Kathleen Cochranposted 13 months ago

    Proposal: We stop playing Russian Roulette with the Supreme Court, adding members based on whoever happens to be sitting in the White House when a vacancy occurs - even presidents who did not get elected by the majority of Americans and will not protect the values the majority agrees on (i.e. abortion).

    Proposal: Five Republican seats on the court and five Democrat seats. When a vacancy arises in one of those designated seats, the senate judicial committee members from the designated party nominates a replacement who is voted on by the entire senate. When the chief justice seat is vacant (the 11th member) the house judicial committee as a whole nominates a replacement who is voted on by the entire house.

    Yes, I'm suggesting expanding the court. The population of the US has grown in 2047 years.

    1. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      I like it!

    2. GA Anderson profile image89
      GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      You are also suggesting making the Court an arbiter of consensus instead of law. Just another 'overt' political apparatus. Each party picks the seats? Would you doubt their very top selection criteria wouldn't be party loyalty?

      GA

      1. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        You are presuming that they are arbiter's of law now, which I would argue they haven't done for quite a while.

        Wasn't that Trump's criteria, and every President before him?

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Good point, isn't that what Trump was doing, packing the court with rightwing fanatics toward the end of his term?

          1. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
            Kathleen Cochranposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Two of whom were stolen seats.

        2. GA Anderson profile image89
          GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          'There you go again . . . ' Trump, Trump, Trump . . . climate change, it's Trump, gun deaths, it's Trump, social injustice, it's Trump, inflation, it's Trump,  Covid, it's Trump, Suzy did Dallas, it's Trump. Geesh.

          GA

          1. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Yep, and I will keep talking about that traitor to America until he is where he ought to be - in jail.  He is the most dangerous threat to American survival there is - worse than Russia and worse than China.  Why, because his threat is much more immediate and in the works.

            1. GA Anderson profile image89
              GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Sure you will, and look how quickly your insertion into every conversation shuts down that conversation.

              GA

              1. My Esoteric profile image86
                My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                That is because Trump lovers can't take the heat.  His evil must always be front of mind if he is to be prevented from doing what Hitler did to Germany or Putin did to Russia.

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  It ludicrous to think that much of our political affairs can exclude Trump. He is at the head of every contentious issue today. It was once mentioned to me that I referred to Trump too often, but when has he not insisted himself on being in the limelight? As the probable Republican nominee and the one so many conservatives and Republicans suck up to, he has to be more than just a mere footnote in our current affairs.

      2. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
        Kathleen Cochranposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        GA: " Each party picks the seats?" It happens now, but it is one person, the president, doing the picking. In both cases, the entire senate or house votes to approve or not.

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Unfortunately, that will take a constitutional amendment.  There needs to be an approach that can be built under the current Advise and Consent framework.

          1. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
            Kathleen Cochranposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            When the National Popular Vote has enough states signed on to go into effect, I'd like to see the people behind that movement take on the Supreme Court nomination/appointment process. They think outside the box and get results.

        2. GA Anderson profile image89
          GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Yeah, selection is already a politically-influenced process., but it doesn't make sense to make it official and expand its power.

          GA

          1. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            America would be so much better off with a divided court full of moderates.  Moderates would follow the law, extremists won't and don't.

            1. gmwilliams profile image84
              gmwilliamsposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              I totally agree with this statement, Mr. Esoteric. Moderates tend to be more logical.

            2. GA Anderson profile image89
              GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              It's going to be tough to illustrate why the Parties' choices would be moderates. My first thought is the court would be the best 'operators' of each party.

              Officially turning what was intended to be the least politically-involved branch into the most politically-involved bench just sounds nuts from the start. Thinking about the mentioned pluses is a process, but so far none have budged that original 'that's nuts' reaction.

              GA

              1. My Esoteric profile image86
                My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                SOCTUS already IS the most politically-involved bench. The attempt is to find a way to make the Court less political.

                1. wilderness profile image93
                  wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Given their record of having decisions overturned I would have given that award to the 9th circuit court.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image86
                    My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    You do live in a world of make-believe, don't you.

                    "Based on the October 2017 term, the Ninth Circuit was often on the wrong side of the Supreme Court. The High Court reversed 15 of its cases -- twice as many as from any other federal appeals court. But over time, the Ninth Circuit is barely ahead of the curve. Since 2007, the 9th has trailed three other circuits in reversal rates. About 75.5 percent of its cases were reversed during that time, but the Sixth Circuit was most-reversed with a 88.1 percent rate. The Eighth Circuit came in second with 76.3 percent, and the Eleventh Circuit was reversed 75.9 percent of the time." - From Find Law.

    3. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      And for those independents?  No representation?

      1. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        The independents can vote with who ever they caucus with.  What Kathleen suggests is so much fairer than what we have now.

        BTW, changing the number of seats on the court is nothing new.  It has been done several times since its creation - six times to be precise.

        Initially, there were six Justices.
        Then in 1800 it was reduced to five
        Then around 1864 it was increased to ten
        Then in 1866 it was reduced to 7
        Then in 1869 it was increased to 9
        And this is where it stands today.

        To go along with Kathleen's proposal, I think their term should last only 20 years.

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          I'm happy with 9 justices and see no need for any more.  And I could go along with your term of 20 years, although that brings up the question of re-appointing them.

          I really hate the thought of turning the SCOTUS into another political football, but also recognize that it already is to a large extent in that position.  Seems difficult to get an honest judge anywhere, one that will make decisions based on law rather than their personal political stance.  Nearly as difficult as an honest politician.

          1. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
            Kathleen Cochranposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            "one that will make decisions based on law rather than their personal political stance. "

            They just did - after 50 years of legal precedence.

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Apparently they did.  I do not have the experience or knowledge to truly understand their decision, and I did not hear the arguments, but in this specific case (RvsW) it sounded correct to my limited knowledge.  The original decision, based on privacy, did not seem correct.

              But I have read decisions from SCOTUS that were very plainly coming from personal feelings, not from law.

            2. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              I am to, so long as they are fairly chosen.  No re-appointing, IMO.

              SCOTUS is already a political football, it has been since 1784.  Kathleen's proposal will at least prevent the type of one-sided court we have today that opposes human and civil rights. It is quite similar to the Taney court of old which gutted the 14th and 15th amendments back in the late 1800s.

              1. wilderness profile image93
                wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                Sounds like you are wishing a court that would make law according to what you want it to be.  That you feel the end of R vs W "opposed human and civil rights", without any consideration of what the law says, indicates that.

                If the law, in your opinion, opposes human rights, then the law needs enforced until changed.  That, of course, is a major difference in how the Constitution is interpreted - IMO it is not a "living document", subject to change according to current political, social or moral whims.  You feel differently, giving rise to objections based on those current whims, and desire a court that will make those changes.

          2. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
            Kathleen Cochranposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            My proposal would be the same with nine justices. I just think representation on the court ought to expand with the population.

            I'm not for term limits, but forced retirement at an agreed upon age might be a good idea. Just stop putting the citizenry at risk based on who happens to be president at the time a replacement is needed. Especially one who is not elected by the majority of Americans.

        2. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
          Kathleen Cochranposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Independents will get to vote in the senate and the house with the amount of influence they have now.

      2. Nathanville profile image91
        Nathanvilleposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        One thing that baffles me is why the Supreme Court in the USA is political.  In the UK a Supreme Court’s Judge's politics is his/her personal affair between him/her and the ballot box e.g. the UK Supreme Court Judges are not selected on their politics, and in fact their politics in the public domain is unknown.

        In the UK there are 12 Supreme Court Judges, but only an odd number can sit on a case e.g. typically 5 or 9, so that cases can be decided on a majority decision.

        In the UK candidates for Supreme Court Judges are selected by an ‘independent commission’ called The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC).

        SELECTION COMMISSION for Supreme Court Judges in the UK

        The selection commission is made up of the President of the Supreme Court, another senior UK judge (not a Supreme Court Judge), and a member each from the Judicial Appointments Commissions for England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - by law, at least one of these from the Justice Appointments Commission cannot be a solicitor (lawyer) e.g. at least one of the members must be a layperson. 

        SELECTION PROCEDURE for Supreme Court Judges by the Selection Commission in the UK

        Once the commission is formed, there are a number of people it is required to consult:-

        1.    The first group is a set of "senior judges" who are not members of the commission and who does not wish to be considered for appointment.

        2.    The commission is then also required to consult the appropriate Government Ministers of the English (UK) Government, Welsh Government, Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Government.

        The selection must be made on merit, in accordance with the qualification criteria as specified in law – Thus keeping politics out of the selection process.

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Now I LOVE the idea you mentioned above; have 12 Justices but let a lottery decide which 9 hear a case as well as a variation of the selection process.

          Let the President pick his or her nominee and let an independent commission made up of equal numbers of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats decide first if that nominee meets the requires laid out to be a fair justice, it would take 60% of the commission to approve a perspective justice. If the nominee makes it through, then send it on to the Senate for a vote.

          1. Nathanville profile image91
            Nathanvilleposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Yep, sounds a good idea:  That would be one step closer to the separation of powers between the Juridical, Executive and Legislature – as it should be in a true democracy:-

            Separation of Powers: https://youtu.be/TL8HyxlL_8c

            While looking on YouTube for the above short video, I stumbled across this video below:  I’ve watched it, but it’s not for me to comment on it as I don’t have an insider’s (American) view on what is being said in the video.  Therefore I would be interested in your feedback and opinions on what is said in the video below:

            The Separation of Powers is BROKEN in the USA: https://youtu.be/1FIzoxAm2IU

        2. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

          Not bad, Arthur.  There are too many among us that would take issue with any chance of parity and impartiality in the court, as it is a threat to power.

          1. Nathanville profile image91
            Nathanvilleposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

            Yep, that's the impression I get.

    4. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 13 months ago

      The next battle social conservatives will wage in their war against women is applying the 150 year old Comstock Law.

      "CNN - A law passed 150 years ago that banned the mailing of contraceptives, lewd materials and drugs that induce abortions could provide a pathway for effectively banning abortion nationwide – even in states where the procedure is legal."

      https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/28/politics … index.html

      Oh, BTW, Republicans once again refused to let the Equal Rights Amendment from taking effect. Not surprising.

    5. RJ Schwartz profile image87
      RJ Schwartzposted 13 months ago

      Wonder why no Democrat President ever put their weight to codify the decision into law. Could it be because they couldn't get the votes? Or possibly because they used the 'fear' Republicans would take away abortion , to bring out voters on election day & that fear value, bringing voter turnout was too high to give up?

      Since abortion rights are not listed in the Constitution as enumerated powers, then the court had no power, other than to turn the decision over to the states. Just because it was a decision made in the past, doesn't make it a law, nor does it make it permanent. If that were the case, we'd still have  Plessy v. Ferguson (1896),  Betts v. Brady (1942), and  Bowers v. Hardwick (1986). How can you argue that the court was correct on those lawful landmark decisions, but somehow incorrect on this one?

      Are the state laws problematic? Some seem to be, but the voters of those states can change them by electing representatives who support the majority position. Obviously not all states agree with your viewpoint, but isn't that the foundation of what our great nation is built upon? We are a Constitutional Republic that gives a voice to all citizens.

      We currently have a Democrat President. Why isn't he and the Democrat Senate putting their full weight into passing a Federal Law to protect abortion through the legislative process? We both know the answer is that it wouldn't pass. The Women’s Health and Protection Act failed, but the Hyde Amendment passed. When Bill Clinton campaigned for the White House in 1992, he did so with the message that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare." but even he (with both Houses) couldn't advance meaningful legislation. Remember the Freedom of Choice Act in 1993. It failed. President Obama did not even try to codify it, eventually even adding a clause of the Affordable Care Act plans from covering abortion.

      1. profile image56
        FreedomRider75posted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Deleted

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          I guess because the majority doesn't rule all the time, only when it benefits social conservatives.

        2. GA Anderson profile image89
          GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Just from your response . . . That 'case' could start with asking the same question for the Dred Scot decision. Would your answer to your last question (you're not so sure) be the same for that case?

          GA

          1. profile image56
            FreedomRider75posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Deleted

            1. GA Anderson profile image89
              GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Ouch, I should have used Credence2's Bd. of Ed. example. Is that different from your thoughts on Roe?

              GA

              1. profile image56
                FreedomRider75posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                Deleted

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Well said, FreedomRider

                  Ask the conservative who speaks of "strict constructionism" and "original intent" how is it possible for a virtual reversal from Plessy to the Board of Education ruling over 58 years? If the Constitution  were written in stone, then there should have been no difference as to how the Board case would have been adjudicated from the decision made regarding Plessy.

                  So who can explain to me how two differing sets of jurors across 58 years can take the Constitution they both shared in common and come to contradictory judgements? The Constitution is the constant so what were the variables that explained the totally differing rulings?

                  1. wilderness profile image93
                    wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    Not familiar with the case or either of the courts, but it is certainly possible that one (either one) "legislated from the bench".

                    1. Credence2 profile image78
                      Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                      Not likely, the 1896 case spoke to the state's rights issue, the other 1954 case spoke of civil rights afforded to all American citizens above and beyond state's rights, which was the better interpretation? Both positions have merit in their respective places. Was it not the States rights issue the explanation used to overturn Roe?

                      Who could have said that the Constitution would have provided a single correct answer? If it were that easy, we would not need to pay 9 men and women over $200,000 a year.

                    2. My Esoteric profile image86
                      My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                      Shouldn't one be educated on a subject before positing whether something is possible or not.  Otherwise, isn't the suggestion just arguing for the sake of arguing?

                  2. GA Anderson profile image89
                    GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    Here ya go, one Conservative explanation would offer an analogy to a very true religious-based explanation; When the televangelists and 'healers'  scandals of the 1980s were being exposed as scams and scandals, a Christian was asked how they could keep the faith? The answer was that their faith was in God, not man.

                    As an analogy for your Court criticisms, just change "God" to 'the structure and entity that is the purpose of the Court.'

                    GA

                    1. Credence2 profile image78
                      Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                      Christian was asked how they could keep the faith? The answer was that their faith was in God, not man.

                      That explains how a Christian can keep his faith regardless of how flawed the messenger is.
                      --------
                      Explain how that would apply to what I am saying about the court?

                  3. profile image56
                    FreedomRider75posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    Deleted

                    1. Credence2 profile image78
                      Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                      Understood, the point I wanted to make that nothing is set in stone as long as mere people are in the business to interpret things. There is no such thing as "original intent", because that is really something that is open to interpretation in of itself.

                      Both sides are guilty of playing politics within the court. Depending upon your ideological bent one would argue that one side is true to the Constitution while other is not, when it is simply more a point of view from either side.

                2. GA Anderson profile image89
                  GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  That was a serious effort. Mine wasn't nearly so. In scrolling back I discovered that I read what I expected you to say, not what you said.

                  I read this: "Ultimately, what does that say about our supreme court?  Are we to be convinced that the current court is more learned?", as the opposite of what it says. Mea culpa.

                  GA

                3. My Esoteric profile image86
                  My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Seems to me that Alito may want to reverse Brown as well.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image86
                    My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    Extremely well thought out and said.

        3. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          There are a lot of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.  No where does it say you can't kill some one.  So why do we have laws that make that illegal?  Your view would seem to suggest those laws could be challenged and voided.

          No where in the Constitution does it say you can't jaywalk.  Yet there are laws against that too.

          My point, of course, is there are many things IMPLIED in the Constitution.  One used to be the right to privacy.  But that no longer exists at the federal level.  We have come a long way baby.

      2. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 13 months ago

        The Florida legislature and Ron DeSantis almost killed this woman.

        https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/02/health/f … index.html

      3. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 13 months ago

        I didn't want to start a forum on chlid labor yet, so I am sticking it here for the moment.

        In the late 1918, the conservative Supreme Court decided it as alright to let children work long hours in unsafe conditions.  In reaction to reporting such as this:
        "Over and over, Hine saw children working sixty and seventy-hour weeks, by day and by night, often under hazardous conditions. He saw children caught in a cycle of poverty, with parents often so ill-paid that they could not support a family on their earnings alone, and had to rely on their children's earnings as a supplement for the family's survival. He saw children growing up stunted mentally (illiterate or barely able to read because their jobs kept them out of school) and physically (from lack of fresh air, exercise, and time to relax and play). He saw countless children who had been injured and permanently disabled on the job; he knew that, in the cotton mills for example, children had accident rates three times those of adults."

        Congress passed a law banning child labor.  In Hammer vs Dagenhart (1918), the conservatives on the Court thought the federal gov't wasn't allowed to protect children.

        In 1941, this travesty of jurisprudence was overturned by liberal Justices

        Well, in an effort to roll the clock back to 1900, Iowa conservatives wants to reinstate child labor.. Go figure.

        Is this the slippery slope to getting back to children working sixty to seventy-four hours a week?

        https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/03/politics … index.html

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          I'm of two minds on this.  Children absolutely must be protected from unscrupulous employers, but at the same time they need to develop a sense of responsibility and a work ethic.  It is very difficult for a 15 year old to find reasonable employment, and has been since my own kids were that age (nearly 30 years ago).  So...we probably do need to relax some of the laws, but it would be very easy to go too far.

          Your link does contain one paragraph about my concerns, of course with a decided liberal twist:

          "Democrats argue that not only could this bill endanger the safety of children, but it would also target teens from lower-income and minority backgrounds. They urged Republicans to instead expand social benefits so children would not have to work to help their families."

          So it is better to simply provide whatever children need (although we already do so) than to teach them those things I mentioned?  I don't think so, and neither do I accept the implied "wrongness" of allowing children of minorities and lower income families to work.  That's just foolishness and an open attempt to bring racism into the question.  Those kids will be better prepared for life than the rich kid that sits home and plays video games.

      4. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 13 months ago

        This is DeSantis' latest attack on human rights for people who don't look or act like him.

        https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics … index.html

      5. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 13 months ago

        Not only is the Dobbs decision killing pregnant women, it is putting women's healthcare clinics in more danger as the right-wing social conservatives ramp up their violence.

        This as there is a huge jump in public support for Pro-Choice.

        https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/11/health/a … index.html

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          "Not only is the Dobbs decision killing pregnant women"

          Got any names/links of women that died as a result of that decision?

          1. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            I am sure I can dig some reports up now that time has gone by.  I already reported on this forum several close calls early on. It is common sense and a normal ability to extrapolate from known data that some women didn't survive being kept pregnant through atopic pregnancies and similar terrible conditions.

            https://www.colorado.edu/today/2021/09/ … ble-digits

            https://www.americanprogress.org/articl … men-dying/

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Search as I could, I didn't find any names of women that died as a result of SCOTUS saying it was the state's responsibility.  Just some references to "horrifying" possibilities and other such verbiage.

              I've run into your "common sense" before (hunting rifles are "weapons of war" that never see a battlefield) and it only serves your purpose, not reality.

              You might keep in mind that the SCOTUS decision did not ban abortions, though - that was left to the states.

      6. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 13 months ago

        Here is another way women die because of Dobbs - they are killed by their boy friends.  Where? Texas of course.

        https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/13/us/texas … index.html

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          People do have a way of being angry over someone killing their children, don't they?  Doesn't excuse it of course (the deed was already done) but most people will understand the "why" even if they don't agree.  Even those from Florida, who are the end all and know all of morality.

      7. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 13 months ago

        This was predicted, now it is happening.  Doctors are fleeing states with draconian abortion laws - as well they should.

        https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/13/us/idaho … index.html

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Well, it would serve the red states right, there, coat hanger will then rule supreme...

          But the women there need to remember that they asked for it....

          1. GA Anderson profile image89
            GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Damn bud, first it's "Uncle" references and now it's "coat hangers?"

            GA

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, indeed, GA

              To quote the late comedian, Jimmy Durante

              "I've got a million of 'em”

            2. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              "Coat hangers" are one of the reasons Roe was passed in the first place.  It makes sense women will revert to them again now that their choice is gone.

              1. GA Anderson profile image89
                GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                . . . and you wish to explain the coat hanger reference to me? Do you think I would have pointed to it if the reference wasn't understood?

                GA

      8. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 13 months ago

        This is what the Conservative Court have forced some women to do - GET STERILIZED rather than risk getting pregnant in a Red State.  Makes me sick to my stomach.

        https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/health/s … index.html

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Wow!  A woman who doesn't want children, and has a medical condition making pregnancy very dangerous, voluntarily gets her tubes tied and it makes you sick to your stomach.

          You're getting almost to the politician level at using emotionalism to argue with rather than hard facts.

          1. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            There you go fabricating things again and driving to the extreme.  I guess you missed the point that this is more than a single woman wanting to be sterilized but thousands upon thousands in order to not run afoul of the draconian Red State laws.

            What did the article say, doctors are seeing a three-fold (300%) increase in women wanting to know about being sterilized.  That is OLNY because of the five conservative Justices and mostly white, male Red State legislatures passing laws their citizens clearly do not want.

            I will not be surprised that sterilization won't be the next target of social conservatives to make illegal.

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              And yet you provided exactly nothing to back up the claim that "thousands upon thousands <want sterilization> in order to not run afoul of the draconian Red State laws."  Understandable as the example woman in the article wanted it for vastly different reasons.

              Of course there is the mind reading example, where you KNOW why all those extra women are considering (not wanting, as you claim) sterilization.  Sure wish I had your crystal ball!

              We'll find out if those legislatures are passing laws the majority of their citizens "clearly do not want", won't we.  My bet is all the outcries do not make it to the next ballot box.  A shame as I wish they would.  In the meantime we still have your crystal ball to tell us these things!

              1. My Esoteric profile image86
                My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                I didn't think I needed to, common sense allows such a conclusion when you extrapolate the message from the article. Why don't you address the fact that triple the number of woman are now seeking information on sterilization.

                All you had to do was Google it to refute me, but you won't because you know you can't

                Dr. Diana N. Contreras, chief healthcare officer of Planned Parenthood, said after the Supreme Court’s decision, the organization saw a huge spike in traffic to its web pages explaining how an individual can get a vasectomy or sterilized.

                In San Antonio, Dr. Michelle Muldrow said the number of women coming into Innovative Women’s OB-GYN requesting sterilization is unlike anything she has seen.

                “I’ve had more consultations for sterilizations in volume per patient load than I’ve ever had in my career,” Muldrow said Wednesday. While she used to see a couple of patients for sterilization every now and then, she now conducts consultations daily.

                “Never before have I seen so many women in such a panic or state of anxiety about their bodies and their reproductive rights,” Muldrow said. “They feel like this is their only option.”


                Dr. Kavita Shah Arora, an OB-GYN in North Carolina and ethics committee chair for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said she has noticed “a dramatic increase” in the number of women requesting sterilization both in her own practice and in conversations with colleagues across the country.

                One of her recent patients, who already has children, was previously unsure about permanent contraception, she said.

                “The Dobbs decision pushed her over the edge to scheduling the surgery as she wanted to retain bodily autonomy and have independence over her decision-making,” Shah Arora said.

                https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nu … -rcna36869 - July 2022

                So many women feel this way now - "“There was no possible way I could go back to Texas with a functioning reproductive system.""
                https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/st … oe-vs-wade

                AUSTIN, Texas — A staggering number of women (I take that to mean thousands) are considering permanent sterilization procedures after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to physicians and online search data.

                /i]Searches for terms such as tubal ligation nearly quadrupled in the week after the high court’s decision, Google data shows. Facebook support groups for those interested in pursuing sterilization have been flooded, with one group gaining more than 2,500 new members since the June 24 ruling. [/i]

                Those were from 2022. It does not take a crystal ball to probably underestimate the number of women thinking about sterilization in the face of social conservatives ruling their bodies, just an active, intuitive mind.

                Since the ruling, there have been hundreds of calls: “There were 200 messages by Sunday night following the decision,” Handcock said.

                1. wilderness profile image93
                  wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Unfortunately I find your "common sense" to most often be a guess supporting liberal agendas, nothing more.  Personally I find that "common sense" says more women will be more careful with birth control measures after abortions are banned rather than take the radical, and often irreversible, step of sterilization. 

                  Of course, part of the difference is that you are equating "looking into possibilities of sterilization" with "wanting to be sterilized".  Common sense tells me that there is a huge difference between wanting an unknown medical procedure and checking it out for full information before making a decision.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image86
                    My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    But why the huge increase in interest for sterilization (which have also risen, btw) but for Dobbs?  Most of those quotes are in reference to Dobbs.

                    And it is not just women.  Men are increasingly getting vasectomies to help protect women from Red State white, male legislatures who have taken away some of their freedoms and joined them in their doctors office.

                    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41443-023-00672-x

                    1. wilderness profile image93
                      wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                      My guess (guess!) is that they are looking for a cheap, reversible but long lasting method of birth control.  That is the common sense reasoning, for both men and women.  When killing children is no long acceptable ("their" words, not mine) then another method of contraception must be found.  And some women cannot take the "pill" while I suspect even more don't like the idea of messing with their bodies natural functions - the result is a search for something else.

                      How about you?  When they find they cannot kill their children do you think they decide the first, easiest, best and cheapest option to be permanent sterilization?  Or are they simply looking at options prior to choosing one?  We'd have to actually ask to know (or wait a few years and see if the sterilization numbers skyrocket), but what would be your guess?

                      (You state it is the white male legislators passing these laws; have you actually checked or is it just more "common sense" that fits your liberal concepts and thus does not need checking?  What percentage of black or women legislators in those states voted to ban abortions, or is that something not to be asked?)

                      1. My Esoteric profile image86
                        My Esotericposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                        Did you know there are only 5 or 6 women in the South Carolina Senate?  I do know that the Florida conservative legislature are dominated by men.  If you have been reading just a little bit, you will have read, as I have, that most Red State legislatures are dominated by white, males.

                        Female sterilization is not reversable. I understand a few male ones are.

                        I guess you missed the part in all those reports that said the surge of women looking into sterilization is for only one reason - to avoid being forced to have a baby in those draconian Red States that think it is OK want to control women's bodies and take away their freedom of choice.

                        Talk about playing on emotions with word choice.  You are equating a not yet viable fetus with an actual, living and breathing child.  Hell, fetuses can't even breath until the 39th week!  If something can't breath, how can you call it alive?

      9. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 13 months ago

        I just tweeted to my followers the following message -

        "PLEASE HELP this message go #viral -

        IF YOU KNOW SOMEONE WHO DIED BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT GET AN #ABORTION, please send a picture and a letter why she died to the Five #Justices who are responsible for her #Death wishing them a good nights sleep."

      10. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 11 months ago

        These horrible stories and more occur everyday since the most ACTIVST judges ever on the Supreme Court struck down a natural right.

        https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/09/health/a … index.html

        https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/07/health/k … index.html

      11. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 9 months ago

        The distavorous decision by the Conservatives on the Supreme Court to take away so many more rights beyond the Right to Choose, has become a disaster for Republicans across the US.  They have lost every election or ballot initiative where abortion played a central role.

        It is on the ballot again in Virginia this November as the State chooses a new legislature.  Republicans are running to ban it to varying degrees while Democrats are running to keep the Right to Choose, Liberty, and Freedom the law in Virginia. 

        Hopefully, the anti-Liberty platform of the Republicans will put the Virginia House back in Democratic hands where it belons and keep the Virginia Senate with the Democrats.

        https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/16/politics … index.html

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Then we will see if the people wish to be able to Choose to murder, kill and destroy children, won't we?

          Changing the labels from truthful and descriptive to insipid and irrelevant doesn't change the act, you know, and it doesn't convince anyone that murder is merely Liberty and Freedom, either.  Perhaps one day we can have actual discussions and draw actual, constructive conclusions rather than merely spouting old rants that political opponents immediately discard.

          1. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Nope, because children are not being murdered, killed, or destroyed. That is just your opinion, and ill-founded one at that.

            That day will never come because everything regarding abortion is subjective and that includes ideas like Freedom and Liberty.  In this country, liberals believe in letting people do their own thing so long as it doesn't hurt other living, breathing human being.

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

              we had a reasonable compromise through Roe verses Wade, but the Republicans would not have it, prefering to put everybody in their manufactured straight jacket.

              1. wilderness profile image93
                wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                I thought so too, but you are grossly mistaken in the idea that Republicans would not have it.  Unless you are prepared to concede that the Constitution is open to change as desired without the need to follow the directions contained in it to effect changes?

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  In many aspects, we have found some common ground on this topic.

                  Here is my problem

                  1. The overturning of Roe vs Wade could be seen from a Constitutional standpoint as justified. The decision implied that this matter was to be settled by the states on an individual basis.

                  2. the GOP has doubled down and made unduly harsh interpretation of this matter of reproductive rights in more than a handful of states under Red Control.

                  3. Because of (a.) A thrust to ban abortion nationwide contrary to the will of Blue states (b) threats against contraception and birth control coming from Rightwingers on the edge and it's not science fiction (c) the ideas from the Right being pursued as to some obligation to restrict the physical movement of women attempting to get abortions in states where it is legal, there can be and will be no meeting of the minds on this matter.

                  The Republicans will be castigated over this issue, even Donald Trump has warned the hard nosed ones that this is a losing issue for them, so I invite the GOP to stay on this destructive course that will take them right over the ravine, to my delight.

                  It is like you always say about the guns, "the left is always trying to take them?"

                  So, I say NO, emphatically, there will be no compromise with the Handmaiden's Tale crowd. I have no empathy for their side or objectives and consider this struggle as tantamount to war. Because the GOP insists on the full Monty not entertaining any form of compromise, we on the left must say NO, as the alternative of that is nothing less than slavery.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image86
                    My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    The 14th Amendment passes on the responsibility to abide by the  Constitution. 

                    Also, the 9th Amendment applies "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

                    To say that the Constitution does not guaranty a person a right to privacy undermines the whole reason we have a Constitution in the first place.  In fact, the Bill of Rights has the Right to Privacy as its underpinning principal. And the 14th Amendment made it clear the Bill of Rights applied to the States as well as the Federal government.

                    1. Credence2 profile image78
                      Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

                      ESO, I probably would have ruled looking at the 4th Amendment, there is, as one past Supreme Court justice put it, an inherent right to be left alone.

                      Funny, Wilderness told me a couple of days ago that the Supreme Court by edict had the authority to make a zygote a citizen with all the rights associated with that. Yet, while the Supreme Court could clearly make an edict outside of anything mentioned in the Constitution, the decision against  Roe verses Wade was justified as judicial overreach? How do I correlate those two ideas?

                      1. wilderness profile image93
                        wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                        The thought that SCOTUS could make a definition is not well thought and could well have holes (giant ones) in it.  Nevertheless, the concept of people, as opposed to other animals, is inherent in the Constitution...but never defined.  It seems reasonable, then, that the highest court in the land COULD define it.

                        RvW, on the other hand, seems to have been a political work around - an effort to weasel out a reason to allow abortions without ever making the distinction between a person and something else.  Certainly it was not the intention of the court to declare that a person was allowed privacy when killing another person, but that's how it turned out to millions of people.

                      2. My Esoteric profile image86
                        My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                        Interesting thought.  While the 4th is about the gov't "seizing" something of yours in an unlawful fashion, the flip side is the gov't FORCING you to keep something you don't want or may kill you.

                        There is no justification for those Justices for substituting their own moral code in opposition to the obvious will of the People.

                2. My Esoteric profile image86
                  My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  I suggest you read some news.  Virtually EVERY Republican state has restricted abortion in major ways while no Democratic ones have.  I think "Republicans would not have it" is an understatement.

                  So, are you one of those who actually believes our Constitution does not guarantee a right to privacy?  That the Constitution allows the government to invade your privacy whenever it wants?

              2. My Esoteric profile image86
                My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Perfectly said.

            2. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              Except I don't believe that and have said so at least 100 times on these forums.

              But it IS what a great many others believe, and it behooves us to understand their angst over the murder of millions of children.  Until that is done, on both sides, we will continue to see fruitless and useless discussions.

        2. Willowarbor profile image62
          Willowarborposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Eight women in Idaho and Tennessee are asking state courts to place holds on their states' abortion laws after being denied access to the procedure while facing harrowing pregnancy complications that they say endangered their lives. Four physicians have also joined the lawsuits, saying the state laws have wrongly forced medical experts to weigh the health of a patient against the threat of legal liability.

          Dr. Emily Corrigan, one of the physicians involved in the Idaho lawsuit, said she often struggles to understand what care she can legally provide to her pregnant patients.

          Currently in Idaho, it is a crime, punishable by two to five years in prison ,  to perform or attempt to perform an abortion. The law states that it is also illegal for health care professionals to assist in an abortion or an attempt to provide one, with the penalty being the suspension or loss of their medical license.

          Fellow Idaho plaintiff Jennifer Adkins said she was denied an abortion after learning through an ultrasound that her 12-week-old fetus likely had Turner syndrome, a rare condition in which one of a female fetus's X chromosomes is missing .

          It wasn't possible to end her pregnancy in Idaho, so she was forced to travel to a clinic in Portland, Oregon, a 6 ½-hour drive away. What if she was unable to make that drive?

          One more: 
          Jaci Statton, who filed the federal complaint in Oklahoma, said she nearly died during a pregnancy that her doctors told her was nonviable. She said she was told to wait in a hospital parking lot until her conditioned worsened enough to qualify for life-saving care.  This is complete Insanity.
          Please, someone tell me why this is necessary?

          Is this really okay? Does this make sense? Please read the link for the additional stories.

          https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory … -103131271

          1. wilderness profile image93
            wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            It occurs to me that if the kinds of things you mention were the only abortions being conducted in past years we would almost certainly not be seeing bans.  But they were not - instead abortion became little more than a method of birth control, angering those that think a zygote is a person and causing them to rise up in arms over the murder of hundreds of thousands of children every year.

            So...perhaps it DOES make sense, in a twisted kind of way.  You might not agree, I certainly don't, but I CAN understand and even sympathize with those seeing abortion as murder.

            1. Willowarbor profile image62
              Willowarborposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              The problem is, we have women with every intention of seeing their baby's birth but are having their lives threatened due to these bans. It just makes little sense to me.  States who have enacted these strict laws and punishments haven't thoroughly thought through the consequences on  such women not to mention  hamstringing doctors.  These laws appear to have little common sense. But what do we expect from lawmakers who generally seem to know very little about positions they take.
              These type of abortions were needed in the past and they will continue to be needed in the future.  I can't even fathom what lawmakers in Idaho expected the woman mentioned in the article to do?  It has literally become life of a fetus over the mother.
              Here's a thought,  if the life of a fetus takes priority over that of the mother ( she is the vessel or let's say organ that it needs to be kept alive) then when do we reach the point that our government tells us that organ donations are mandated?   If we can force pregnancy can we force you to give up one of your good kidneys for the life of another?   There is no other instance in US law that forces you to keep another person alive using your body.  This is the principle of bodily autonomy which is widely respected in law.
              For instance,  the ironic circumstance that a mother could be forced to give birth but if the child needed her blood for some reason she could not be compelled to give that blood.   
              It seems utterly inconsistent a to force someone to carry around a fetus inside your own body because it can only remain alive because they are physically attached to you and dependent upon you. But no one can force you to donate a life-saving kidney if the person in the bed next to you in the hospital will die without it.

              Thank you for entertaining some truly random thoughts.

              1. wilderness profile image93
                wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                It makes little sense to you because you don't see a zygote as a person, and refuse to accept that others do.  It doesn't make sense because you don't see 600,000 murders every year as a form of birth control and don't consider that others do.  A little empathy, trying to understand the viewpoint of others even if you disagree with it, goes a long way.

                1. My Esoteric profile image86
                  My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Then those "others" shouldn't get abortions.  But, because they THINK they are right, they will FORCE their beliefs on everybody else who does not think a zygote is a living, breathing human being.  You, and they are in the vast minority of that OPINION.

                  1. wilderness profile image93
                    wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    Not I, for I do not see a zygote, or an early fetus, as a person.  But I DO make an effort to understand what others are saying whether I agree with them or not.

                    Something you might try one day.

                    1. My Esoteric profile image86
                      My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                      I do all the time.  It is just when those opinions make no sense and are harmful to others do I say something.  Since I don't generally comment on things I agree with, I can see where you, without digging deeper, say something like that.

                2. Willowarbor profile image62
                  Willowarborposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  You didn't address the suffering of the women who needed abortion care due to catastrophic situations.
                  My next point had to do with the concept of bodily autonomy. If I fully accept the idea of personhood for a zygote and that the zygote's life must be furthered by the use of a woman's body then should I accept the premise that the lives of other humans must in turn be forcefully  aided by others bodies?  Forced organ donation? Forced blood donation?  The concept of bodily autonomy has certainly been blurred.
                  As I had previously stated, certain states can force women to give birth but ironically cannot force that same woman to give blood to her newborn who may be in need of a transfusion.

                  1. wilderness profile image93
                    wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    Personally I see a difference between the two cases.  If nothing else, the mother wanting an abortion did not create the life that wants a new liver or more blood.  She is not responsible for them the way she is for her own child.

                    The case of a newborn that needs a transfusion, and the mother refuses, I have never heard of.  That one might require some thought...thought that can wait until it becomes a problem more than once a year worldwide.

                    1. My Esoteric profile image86
                      My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                      Some religions would order the mother not to give the transfusion, instead relying on God to effect a cure.

                      Since you will ask, I will give you a partial list (they are all Christian, btw):

                      * Christian Scientists
                      * Church of Scientology
                      * Pentecostals
                      * Jehovah's Witness
                      * Amish

                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7545013/

                      1. wilderness profile image93
                        wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                        I actually thought of that...but have never heard of a single instance of such a thing happening.  Of course, we run into a conflict with freedom of religion in ordering a blood donation or a transfusion - something we're going to have to address one day.  I HAVE heard of children dying (in my own state) from lack of care for religious reasons...and have also seen the parents prosecuted for withholding needed care in some of those cases.

                    2. Willowarbor profile image62
                      Willowarborposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                      The case of a newborn that needs a transfusion, and the mother refuses, I have never heard of.  That one might require some thought...thought that can wait until it becomes a problem more than once a year worldwide.

                      Herein lies the case of bodily autonomy.  A case that is applicable to all.  It is irrelevant how many times an infant may need blood from the mother.  The legal reality is that mother cannot be compelled to give that blood. She cannot be forced to give that blood. Her consent is needed to draw that blood. She has choice.  She has bodily autonomy in that regard.
                      A doctor in that same hospital cannot choose to take her kidney and give it to someone who will die without it.
                      Yet bodily autonomy is set aside on the case of abortion before viability. 
                      The state essentially co-opts the women's body and directs it's will upon it.  The state essentially says you have no choice but to use your body as an incubator, a life support machine for a zygote..

                      So if the government in certain states can limit bodily autonomy, wouldn't it necessarily follow that a forced organ donation situation should be legal also?

                      Again, there is no instance in law that forces you to keep another being alive with your own body.

                      How can you have it both ways?
                      In this scenario, with right wing logic forced organ donation should be legal  or abortion rights should be protected up to the point of viability.

                      In both pregnancy and when someone needs your kidney to survive, a life rests in your hands.  In the latter case the law unequivocally disallows anyone from forcing you to let that person use your body to survive. In the former case, for some reason the law is not so unequivocal.

                      My bottom line?

                      By granting these personhood rights to a fetus, it extends rights that no physically manifest person has.

                      1. wilderness profile image93
                        wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                        "How can you have it both ways?"

                        One is that actively taking a body apart, destroying it, is not quite the same as refusing to give up a part of your body to give to another.  There is, to me, a huge difference.

                        But where would give a fetus Personhood?  4 months?  6?  Birth?  If anything less that birth, aren't the arguments then just put off a bit?

                  2. My Esoteric profile image86
                    My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    They don't count, don't you see?  The only thing that matters, it appears, is whether a non-living zygote exists.

                    Hell, some of these zealots go as far as to make it illegal to have products that prevent zygotes from even being formed in the first place.

                3. My Esoteric profile image86
                  My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Even back in the 16th century, they understood what a "person" was.

                  The physical body of a being seen as distinct from the mind, character, etc. [from 14th c.]
                  1624, Democritus Junior [pseudonym; Robert Burton], The Anatomy of Melancholy: […], 2nd edition, Oxford, Oxfordshire: Printed by John Lichfield and James Short, for Henry Cripps, →OCLC, partition 3, section 1, member 2, subsection 3, page 347:


                  A zygote does not qualify as a person by any stretch of the imagination.

            2. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              "But they were not - instead abortion became little more than a method of birth control, " - Although I know you won't, but please provide the stats to back up that ridiculous claim.

              1. wilderness profile image93
                wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                LOLOLOL  If you think 600,000 abortions per year are anything BUT an alternative form of birth control you really need to check your reality meter.

                1. My Esoteric profile image86
                  My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  My reality meter is fine.

                  But apparently your ability to read the minds of those who get an abortion is well also. 

                  So, since you didn't provide any specifics and just threw that number out their for its propaganda effect, let me assert that only 1 out of those 600,000 was due to non-medical reasons. (Of course I don't know what the real number is and neither do you.)

      12. tsmog profile image83
        tsmogposted 9 months ago

        Following the dialogue prompted curiosity and an adventure or two. If curious two articles answered for me at this time two elements discussed so far. One is about the Supreme Court and the rights of the fetus. It appears the Supreme Court does not want to stick its neck out on that question. The other is about personhood.

        U.S. Supreme Court rebuffs fetal personhood appeal by Reuters (Oct 12, 2022)
        https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-suprem … 022-10-11/

        Opening paragraph:
        "The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to decide whether fetuses are entitled to constitutional rights in light of its June ruling overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had legalized abortion nationwide, steering clear for now of another front in America's culture wars."

        Personhood: An Essential Characteristic of the Human Species at National Library of Medicine. (Feb 2013) [A very lengthy read, yet quite interesting, and is a deep dive into different perspectives.) Worth a skim of the subheadings if anything.
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6081772/

        One quote is:
        "As we consider how we ought to treat the human fetus or embryo, the most constructive questions are: When does a developing human begin to acquire the entitlements of membership in the moral (human) community? When does it begin to count as one of us? When should it become enfranchised by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution? These are metaphysical questions, and, thus, are not susceptible to resolution using the devices of ethics. Practical answers, if any, will issue from the political process (p. 300)."

        And, within the article, they do discuss the legal perspective in relationship to the Consitution. The Subheading is - Personhood is Not a Right.

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Very interesting, thanks for the links.

      13. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 6 months ago

        The Conservatives on the Supreme should be jumping for joy observing this predictable fall-out from their disastrously decision to take away women's rights.

        This lady could very well die from the Texas Republican draconian abortion law.

        If she does die, they should charge Paxton with Manslaughter - two counts, one for the mother and one for the baby he killed.

        https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/08/us/texas … index.html

        1. Willowarbor profile image62
          Willowarborposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          This absolutely disgusts me that for the first time in 50 years A woman has had to go before a court and beg for necessary health Care.  And now the state supreme court of Texas decides they need to think about it? Will this be headed ironically right up to our Supreme court? Trump has brought us this.  I don't think this woman can even leave the state to obtain care elsewhere as I do believe Texas has the bounty law. Cruelty really is the point with Republicans. The attorney general is trying to punish this woman as much as possible.

          Republicans want less government and to stay out of people's lives? LOL what will they want to force on us next?

          I find the silence from our MAGA friends quite curious.  Wilderness weighed in on another post but crickets from the others.

          1. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            Now that she is leaving the state for healthcare, will she be prevented. maybe arrester by Paxton or other Republicans?  Will Paxton bring charges against anyone who helps her get out of the prison she is in?  Will Republicans sue her and anyone who helps her, regardless of what state they live in?

            Trump loves to call people "vermin".  Well that insult certainly fits Texas Republicans who support Paxton.

      14. Willowarbor profile image62
        Willowarborposted 6 months ago

        The Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents Cox, announced on Monday the 31-year-old mother, who is 21 weeks pregnant, decided to leave the state to get health care elsewhere. While the center is not disclosing more details about her plans, their statement said she’s received “offers to help her access abortion elsewhere, from Kansas to Colorado to Canada.”

        “Her health is on the line. She’s been in and out of the emergency room and she couldn’t wait any longer. This is why judges and politicians should not be making health care decisions for pregnant people—they are not doctors.”

        What if she wasn't able to get out of the state for the procedure? Particularly due to finances. She has to go quite a ways to find a state that allows the procedure.  What will Ken Paxton's next move be in retaliation? 

        Begging for healthcare in a court of law. This is the legacy of Trump, who has boasted of his success in the curtailment of reproductive rights. In a second Trump term, this will surely intensify and expand.

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          I certainly hope there is a way for her to retaliate against the Republicans in Texas.  As a minimum, if she has the will and stamina, she should go on the campaign trail with every Democrat running for office in Texas and tell her story.

          1. gmwilliams profile image84
            gmwilliamsposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            I believe that a woman's right to choose should be ensconced into law at the federal level.  I believe that the federal law should decide pertinent laws, not the state.  There is a time & place for everything & important laws such as a woman's right to choose should NEVER be left for individual states to decide.  There are some states that are less enlightened than others- so the federal government must make laws that are palatable for equal rights.

            1. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              It is a shame most Republicans don't feel the way you do.

              1. gmwilliams profile image84
                gmwilliamsposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                Not a Republican at all.  To reiterate, I am a Democrat & a Liberal one.  I have always been pro-choice.   I vehemently believe that children should be wanted.  To me, forced parenthood is beyond barbaric & into demonic.   I am for women's reproductive rights.  I am for birth control & small families. Having unwanted children results in child abuse, throwaway children, not to mention poverty & limited opportunities for women & future psychosocial & sociological detriments for the whole society. 

                I had an aunt who had an unwanted child.  Her future was shattered.  She became embittered, taking out her anger on others.  Yes, I have always been for a woman's right to an abortion since I was in my teens.

                1. My Esoteric profile image86
                  My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  Then how can you be for Trump? He is a misogynist and opposes women's rights?

                  1. wilderness profile image93
                    wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    Which "women's rights" is Trump against?  Certainly not the right of reproduction, for he has never proposed mass sterilization of women he doesn't like - every woman is free to reproduce (given they can find sperm) or not to.

                    1. My Esoteric profile image86
                      My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      I guess you don't follow the news in that fantasy world you live in.  Is that why you ask such a ridiculous question?

                    2. Sharlee01 profile image89
                      Sharlee01posted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      I find Trump's views on Abortion adequate, and very fair-minded.
                      In his own words --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZqnrAcEpf8

                      1. My Esoteric profile image86
                        My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                        What I heard him say is that he is PROUD to have taken away a woman's Federal Right to Privacy and control over her own body. 

                        And do you actually believe the rest of his answer given he is estranged from the truth.  What we know about him is his actions - which was to strip women of some of their freedoms,

                        Remember, in 1999, he said he was VERY PRO-CHOICE.  What happened in between then and now?  He ran for President on the Republican ticket.  So switching was a matter of politics for him, not conviction.

                        Trump has taken so many positions on abortion, how do you know which one he really believes.

                        But one thing we do know for sure, he was PROUD to have taken away your control over your own body.  I must ask, are you equally proud he did that to you?

          2. Credence2 profile image78
            Credence2posted 6 months agoin reply to this

            I am surprised that Republicans do not devise some way of making it difficult for this woman to receive abortion related health care outside of the state. Would they dare stand in the way at this point?

            1. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              Texas HAS already made it difficult, if not impossible, for women to receive this kind of healthcare outside the state.  They passed the law that allows any Texan to file civil suits against ANYONE, ANYWHERE, that helps a woman obtain an abortion without fear of even having to pay for it even if they lose.

      15. Willowarbor profile image62
        Willowarborposted 6 months ago

        The Republican Texas Supreme Court has made it crystal clear that there will be no exception to their abortion law short of the active death of the woman. And that will still most likely involve criminal charges to all involved.  If I were an OB in Texas I'd be packing in in right about now.
        I've made it my mission for the next year to work with as many local  and national groups as possible to make sure young people hear these stories and understand how dangerous it will be to put Trump, the one who is proud of and boasts of killing Roe, into the White House.

        Still waiting to hear from our conservative folks... How is this not the most egregious, dangerous example of government overreach and control?  How is this not authoritarian?

        Are these women just collateral damage? Acceptable losses in service of advancing the overall maga agenda? the top 1% are looking for another tax cut so a few women may die here or there to appease the evangelicals?

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 6 months agoin reply to this

          Willow, they, the conservatives have nothing to say. It is just another issue that they just assume would be kept under the MAGAT hat. As we saw in 2022, it will be the Achilles heel that will derail all of their ambitions for 2024.

          The Impending risk of virtually slavery as promoted by the Right has to be more important than the few more cents a pound that they pay for ground beef.... Priorities?

          1. Sharlee01 profile image89
            Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

            This discussion thread provides insight into the diverse  (right and left) opinions on abortion held by individual users in this community. After reviewing the thread, it appears unfair to generalize that conservatives or Republicans have not addressed the issue, as many have expressed varying perspectives. Living in a swing state where abortion was recently on the ballot, I observed that it passed with strong support. It would not have passed without Republican support.

            In my opinion, we should strive for fair abortion laws that uphold the right to choose, within reasonable limitations. These limitations could include considerations such as fetal pain, instances of rape, incest, genetic abnormalities, or health issues preventing the mother from carrying to term.

            Regarding Trump's stance on abortion, recent articles quote his current thoughts on the matter. It may be unjust to criticize his views without acknowledging his present perspective. Based on my research, he is advocating for constructive dialogue between both sides to find balanced solutions that satisfy diverse viewpoints, a stance that seems sensible.
            https://www.axios.com/2023/09/17/trump- … egulations

            We are seeing cases, as the one Willow has pointed out, that are clearly not just.  The people of Texas did not get the right to vote on the issue. This is unfair. The people need to make their wishes known and make them known loudly with their votes. They have the power to vote out those that they are at odds with.

            1. Willowarbor profile image62
              Willowarborposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              Trump also made these statements

              “After 50 years of failure, with nobody coming even close, I was able to kill Roe v. Wade"

              Trump said his actions have “put the Pro Life movement in a strong negotiating position” against proponents of abortion rights, giving himself credit for the various bans.

              “Without me there would be no 6 weeks, 10 weeks, 15 weeks, or whatever is finally agreed to. Without me the pro Life movement would have just kept losing,”

              He alone, by way of his Supreme Court nominations, is responsible for the current situation in Texas.  With many more to come.

              No child or adult should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against their will. The MAGA Party is running on a platform of authoritarianism, forced birth, and human suffering. He is not to be trusted.  Far too many are looking to make America Texas.

              This recent case has really just gotten me very motivated to act politically.
              My god, Paxton wanted to force this mother to carry a fetus to term in which if she survived the process would then have to deliver a dead baby or watch it die? She was fortunate to have the means to escape the state but poor women will not. They will face the unbelievable cruelty, depravity at the hands of the government.

              Really does give one the impression that MAGA hates women .

              1. wilderness profile image93
                wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                "No child or adult should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against their will."

                Just curious, but does that include an 8 1/2 month pregnant woman?

                1. Willowarbor profile image62
                  Willowarborposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  If a doctor asserts  there are life-threatening circumstances, yes. There has to be room that a doctor can make that decision. Not a politician. Not an attorney. Not a judge. But A doctor. Texas has taken decision making out of the doctor's hands.  There will be these very rare cases where this would be necessary. I think statistics show that it's less than 1% of an occurrence when needed.
                  Should an abortion be offered at 8 months on demand, just because? No absolutely not. We are talking about the life of the mother in danger. We are talking about known catastrophic fetal anomaly. These are not situations in which women should be forced at the hand of the government to potentially die giving birth to a nonviable fetus. My kitty any woman currently in Texas who may have a high risk pregnancy.

                  1. wilderness profile image93
                    wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    In wide principle I would agree with you...but not in the case of a woman just 2 weeks short of delivery.  There are other methods of removing that person from her womb that do not include killing it.  And at that age it IS a person IMO.

                    But I would suggest a little more care with such sweeping statements, for it most definitely did indicate that very late term abortions (all the way up to being in labor but not having delivered yet) are acceptable.  You did not mean that but it is what you said.

                2. My Esoteric profile image86
                  My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  Of course it does in a few rare cases - like if the pregnancy will kill her or the now baby will be born dead or dying.  Those are the only times in the past that late stage abortions were carried out. They never have been done for the fun of it has Conservatives insist they have.

                  1. wilderness profile image93
                    wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    And yet we both know late term abortions have been done solely to prevent a birth.  Rarely, but they have happened.

                    1. My Esoteric profile image86
                      My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                      You make wild-ass statements like that without ANY PROOF.  Why.  Since you don't provide it, we are pretty sure you put that out there for propaganda purposes.

              2. Sharlee01 profile image89
                Sharlee01posted 6 months agoin reply to this

                "“After 50 years of failure, with nobody coming even close, I was able to kill Roe v. Wade"

                This is certainly what he said, he proposed sending the decision back to individual states leaving the decision-making in the hands of the citizens. This has not worked out because some states are not putting abortion on the ballots. So, the majority are not being heard.

                In my view when Trump makes this statement ---  “Without me there would be no 6 weeks, 10 weeks, 15 weeks, or whatever is finally agreed to. Without me the pro Life movement would have just kept losing,”

                This is somewhat true, many states have revamped their abortion laws regarding weeks. Not all are pleased with newer laws.

                I noted your entire comment, you are intitled to your view. I have no will nor do I find it necessary to defend the America First agenda.

                I have hopes that women will become more aware of their bodies, and the need for birth control. This would help cut down the need for abortions. I was clear in my comment above, that I feel rape, incest, and the health of the mother need to be able to obtain abortions without question. I am for a 20-week law.

                1. My Esoteric profile image86
                  My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  "Not working out" was a forgone conclusion when Roe was overturned.  Why do you think Roe was found constitutional in the first place? Because some states abused their authority.

                  1. wilderness profile image93
                    wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    "Why do you think Roe was found constitutional in the first place?"

                    Not because some states abused their authority, for states DO have the authority, under the Constitution, to prevent abortions.  Rather, it was found constitutional because the court legislated from the bench, making new law, rather than following their constitutional requirements to allow Congress, and only Congress to make new national law.  Personally I found it to be quite a good law but that does not make a law based on twisting the right of privacy into something it was not and never meant to be Constitutional.

            2. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              We had fair abortion laws until the Conservatives on the Supreme Court decided to take it away, followed shortly by Conservatives in many Red states making it virtually impossible to obtain one.

              I am glad to see normal Republican citizens are against the Conservative war on women's rights.  But, are they scared enough to vote the Conservative lawmakers out of office.  I doubt it.

        2. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          I wonder if Texas Republicans will figure out a way to punish a woman's heirs if she dies giving childbirth and taking her baby with her. I wouldn't be surprised, they are that evil.

      16. Willowarbor profile image62
        Willowarborposted 4 months ago

        Interesting study from JAMA quantifying one of the effects of Dobbs.

        "Following the US Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Dobbs) decision overturning Roe v Wade, 14 states have outlawed abortion at any gestational duration. Although 5 of these states allow exceptions for rape-related pregnancies, stringent gestational duration limits apply, and survivors must report the rape to law enforcement, a requirement likely to disqualify most survivors of rape, of whom only 21% report their rape to police"

        "Post Dobbs, 10 or fewer legal abortions occurred monthly in each of the total abortion ban states".  Keep that in mind as you read the rest..

        "We estimated rape-related pregnancies by state to assess how abortion bans affected survivors of rape."

        "In the 14 states that implemented total abortion bans following the Dobbs decision, we estimated that 519, 981 completed rapes were associated with 64,565 pregnancies during the 4 to 18 months that bans were in effect.  Of these, an estimated 5586 rape-related pregnancies (9%) occurred in states with rape exceptions, and 58,979 (91%) in states with no exception, with 26,313 (45%) in Texas.

        "Girls and women in states that banned abortion experienced rape-related pregnancy, but few (if any) obtained in-state abortions legally, suggesting that rape exceptions fail to provide reasonable access to abortion for survivors."

        State-sponsored forced birth has been realized.   Another shocking offshoot is how common rape is in this country.

        https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain … le/2814274

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          I keep searching but have found a report yet of where these draconian laws against women have resulted in the death of a pregnant mother because she couldn't get help?

          In any case, Biden and Harris and any other Democrat out on the campaign trail need to take women like that Texas one where the state tried to kill her with them so they can personalize the harm Republicans are causing.

      17. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
        Kathleen Cochranposted 4 months ago

        Wilderness: Not taking the bait.

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Which is why the debate and division rages on - because no one wants to talk about when human life begins.  No one wants to compromise and actually set a time.  Everyone wants the rest of us to simply capitulate and use their opinion as fact, whether that opinion is at conception or the first breath or somewhere in between.

          1. Credence2 profile image78
            Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

            We had a compromise with Roe vs Wade, who abandoned it?

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              While you may, as a liberal, disagree with interpreting the Constitution as it reads and as it was meant, I do not.  It is not a flexible document, intended to be "interpreted" according to the current political leanings.

              Still, I wish that suit had never been filed, and RvW had not been changed.  To me, it was an acceptable compromise and after so many years of existence it was workable.

              1. Credence2 profile image78
                Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

                I understand the reason the decision regarding Roe vs Wade was made. It is the doubling down and pouring salt into the wound with draconian provisions against abortion rights by GOP state legislatures  that stand front and center.

                Conservatives are the most responsible for the failure to compromise as is evident over many red states. I should make that clear.

                1. wilderness profile image93
                  wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  I 100% agree that the word "compromise" has left our political scene.  As has "protect the minority", or "live and let live".

                  It is the way of our land today, and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

                  So...you are correct, while noting that the attempt to vilify conservatives is just as out of line, for both parties are equally guilty.  Party politics first, then the needs and desires of the people and country.  Neither party is superior to the other here.

          2. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
            Kathleen Cochranposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            I'm not about talking or debating. Evangelicals demand agreement on their point of view. My point is simply that it is not Biblical. If any group should demand that, they should.

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Apologies: I tool your quote from genesis, and your comment about that quote, as an indication that the bible states that the first breath of air puts the "soul" into man and thus makes him different from all other animals (with the implied assumption that others animals have no soul).

              My point is that no one should care, or should present, what the bible has to say about the matter.  We are NOT a "Christian Nation", dependent on a millennia old tome written by people ignorant of almost everything around them.

              It is up to us, as a people, to define what "human life" is and when it begins.  Do so and the abortion issue will be solved, but we never make the effort, simply demanding that our own answer is the truth and that everyone else must accept that opinion as factual.

              1. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
                Kathleen Cochranposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                Wilderness: No, we are not a "Christian Nation." We have freedom of and from religion.

                I think those who claim Christianity and a literal translation of the Bible should apply that standard to every verse, not just the ones they cherry pick - especially when there are verses that debunk their certainty that they alone are right about when life begins.

                Sorry for the delayed reply. I'm not on this site all that often any more.

      18. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 4 months ago

        And people always ask me why I never consider voting Republican.....


        https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-legislat … 46341.html

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          It is sad that shenanigans such as this one, using courts and irrelevant arguments, are used so often today to make our laws rather than the vote of the people.

          But it isn't just one party; it is the whole system from Capitol Hill on down to the local dog catcher.  We have gone from an acceptance of democracy to fighting in the courts to get what we want regardless of what others might desire.

          1. Credence2 profile image78
            Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

            But most of the problem themes discussed in the articles are overwhelmingly coming from Republicans and the Right.

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              What else would you expect from a biased, left wing source?  You want "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" you will have to research at least a dozen sources.

              1. Credence2 profile image78
                Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

                So Associated Press is a biased left wing source? You people say that about preponderance of media excepting only the minisucle and clearly biased right wing sources...

                My point is being made by everyone except hopelessly hide bound and biased conservatives....

                Where is your data to challenge it? If you don't have it, then the position you take is not supported.

                1. wilderness profile image93
                  wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  LOL  Very nearly ALL of our media sources today are biased to one side or the other, and a large majority are leaning left.

                  I think you know this, too, even if you accept the tales from left leaning sources as factual.

                  1. Credence2 profile image78
                    Credence2posted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    I always said that it is the height or arrogance and or ignorance to not be willing to provide supporting data to back up an assertion. It is either lazy or some sort of subterfuge in intent.

                    Well, Wilderness, I should not be surprised, I have had this sort of issue with you over our many years of interchange.

                    I will leave it at that.

      19. Willowarbor profile image62
        Willowarborposted 3 months ago

        "In a controversial opinion that could end the practice of in vitro fertilization in the state, the Alabama Supreme Court on Friday declared that frozen embryos are “children” entitled to the same legal rights as other “unborn children.”

        So the Alabama Supreme Court says that frozen embryos are children and cites the Bible in it's opinion....

        The court said that 3 couples whose frozen embryos were destroyed when a wandering Mobile hospital patient dropped the specimens can sue for wrongful death because the embryos were “children,” 

        Where will this lead?  Far right extremists will take away IVF? 

        In looking up some stats, it looks like 1/10 of embryos die from freezing and less than 5% are used in implantation. So in Alabama it takes about 22 dead children to get to one IVs success. 

        The 8-1 decision declares “the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies to all unborn children, regardless of their location.” (LOL in this case a freezer)

        Sounds like an awful lot of children are dying due to IVF... Sounding like we'll need to outlaw that.

        What next??   Murder charges for doctors attempting implantation that ends up unsuccessful?  This looks like a nice launch pad to criminalize any pregnancy loss. 

        https://www.alreporter.com/2024/02/19/a … .%E2%80%9D

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          The far right is flexing its muscles, for sure. 

          What I found interesting is that the court quoted the bible as the definitive source for it's decision, saying that the Alabama Constitution recognized Christianity, and it's fables, as governing the state (paraphrasing here).  I have to wonder how that fits into the nation's Constitution, except that the federal law does not prohibit states from creating their own religion.  Still, past decisions have taken that "right" from states - why is this allowed to continue?

        2. Ken Burgess profile image74
          Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          You win that one.  No arguments here.

          What, or how, do you get "a wandering Mobile hospital patient dropped the specimens"

          I am picturing a mobile hospital... a deployable, on wheels, hospital?

          Picking up specimens?

          And the Patient dropped them?

          And now they can sue because the Patient dropped them?

          Do I even want to know?

          Probably not.

          1. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
            Kathleen Cochranposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            And now Alabama wants to make it harder for women who can't get pregnant any other way to benefit from IVF. Are they "pro-life" or not.

            Full disclosure: Two of my precious nine grandchildren are only with us thanks to the miracle of IVF.

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              I'm waiting for a law/court decision that declares contraception to be murder.  Anything that kills either a gamete or zygote - the "Pill", an IUD, even an implant or condom.  All that needs done is to declare that half a human cell, a gamete, is a "child" - we've already been told that a zygote is a child "because God said so", so can a gamete be far behind?

              The world has gone mad.

              1. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
                Kathleen Cochranposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                I can't tell you how many Christian women I know who are adamantly "pro life" but use an IUD - for all intents and purposes a self-aborted.

                Either any interference is evil or one is no worse than another.

      20. Willowarbor profile image62
        Willowarborposted 3 months ago

        Meanwhile in Missouri...

        A Missouri Republican has proposed an amendment seeking to ban women from Medicaid if they have ever had an abortion.

        Missouri Senate Democrats shared the proposed amendment introduced by state Sen. Mike Moon on social media.

        Some responded to the post by saying blocking women from being eligible for the government's health insurance program for the neediest Americans if they had received an abortion was "cruel."

        But cruelty is the point... If this passes, I wonder how they will root these women out

        https://www.newsweek.com/medicaid-ban-w … ri-1868440

      21. Willowarbor profile image62
        Willowarborposted 3 months ago

        Alabama’s largest hospital paused in vitro fertilization treatments Wednesday as providers and patients across the state scrambled to assess the impact of a court ruling that said frozen embryos are the legal equivalent of children.

        The University of Alabama at Birmingham health system said in a statement that it must evaluate whether its patients or doctors could face criminal charges or punitive damages for undergoing IVF treatments. “We are saddened that this will impact our patients’ attempt to have a baby through IVF,” the statement from spokeswoman Savannah Koplon read.

        I'm just baffled by this. IVF brings life into the world.  So what is the Republican explanation for this? Is the bright side that there will be plenty of babies available for adoption through the forced births?  No expensive procedure needed. A win-win in Republican's eyes?

        It is clearer than ever that women will decide this next election. Keep it up GOP.  The SCOTUS mifepristone decision is the next potential bombshell.

      22. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 3 months ago

        The Disastrous Ramifications of the Deadly Reversal of Roe vs Wade has struck again with the Alabama Supreme Court ruling that frozen embryos are children.  Along with all the comments that precede this one here is another take on that terrible decision - it puts these anti-choice agitators in a logical paradox.
        y
        Many of them say IVF must be protected. If they take that stance then (besides being in hypocritical) they either 1) don't agree that frozen embryos are children and that doctors and parents shouldn't be held civilly or possibly criminally liable for their destruction or 2) agree that the embryo's are children but there should be no consequence if they die in order to protect IVF.

        In the former case, their argument that embryos in the uterus evaporates and that their anti-choice decision to interfere with another humans personal rights is purely self-serving.  In the latter case.  In the latter case, they are being beyond hypocritical and their fight against women's personal freedom is again purely self-serving.

        https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/us/rulin … index.html

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Are you suggesting that people declaring that a zygote (fertilized human egg) is a child are rational, that their reasoning is logical because it comes from their personal interpretation of a millenia old document written in a political act to promote a specific religion by people ignorant of almost every bit of scientific knowledge of the world around them?

          1. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            They are as rational as other MAGA's.

      23. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 3 months ago

        I had forgotten that many Republicans are talking out of both sides of their mouths (fancy that) regarding IVF.  While ostensibly supporting IVF over embryos that are children, they are trying to pass a federal law that makes ANY embryo a child as soon as the egg is fertilized with no exception for IVF!!  Talk about Big Government hypocrites, lol.

        https://dccc.org/new-125-house-republic … exception/

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          I have maintained for years (and have been vocal about it) that the entire abortion question hangs on the answer to "When does "personhood" begin".  Few would respond, preferring the standby's of "A woman controls her body" or " Abortion is murdering people".  Certainly our esteemed legislators never addressed the question.

          Well, now they have, with the results being seen.  I have to wonder if the actual question will be addressed or if politics and political power will drive the response to this madness.

      24. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 3 months ago

        I figured conservatives were being hypocritical when they "said" they were for IVF.  The Democrats in the Senate put forward a bill to protect IVF across the nation.  Guess what, the Republicans shot it down.

        Another nail in the coffin of Republicans taking over the Senate.

        https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/28/politics … index.html

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          From the link:

          “The bill before us today is a vast overreach that is full of poison pills that go way to far, far beyond ensuring legal access to IVF,” she argued."

          “This bill does three things and three things only,” said Duckworth. “It protects the right of individuals to seek assisted reproductive technology without fear of being prosecuted for seeking that technology. It preserves the right of physicians to provide that assisted reproductive technology without fear of being prosecuted. And it also allows insurance companies to cover assisted reproductive technology.”

          These two statements are in direct opposition to each other.  Which one is true is not apparent from the link, as the bill is not quoted and neither offers reasoning to support the statement made. 

          Given the propensity to try and shove bills through that do more than is apparent, I would have to assume that the first, that there is far more going on than is apparent, is likely the true one.

          1. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Given the how significantly more the Conservative side lacks in veracity when compared to the Liberal side, I would go with the Democrats version.

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              I am sure you would!

      25. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 3 months ago

        Question - If a Republican down-ballot candidate comes out against IVF, so that they don't appear hypocritical, will they lose lots of Republican votes?

        The House, even though most hold the position that a fertilized egg is a child, recently voted to protect IVF even though that means they are now OK with discarding unused embryos (children).

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Here is the latest Esoteric.

          https://www.businessinsider.com/donald- … ion-2024-3

          I think Trump, who has no real moral moorings, is doing what he does best, engaging in expediency. He wants to put to rest concerns of urban professional women who voted against him that he not going to be unreasonable about abortion rights. He is just going to have to persuade the hard right wing Christian evangelists and other bone head conservatives types with dog whistles that this is just a ruse to get votes.

          It has a political purpose, if elected he would be more than happy to sponsor a national ban. Don't be fooled.

          1. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, as is pointed out in the article, Lying Trump is prouder than anything that he is responsible for all the hurt and probable death this misogynist has caused women since Dobbs.  Very proud indeed.

      26. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
        Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

        https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … Ud9BanMpeA

        "blatantly Christian nationalist opinion in the IVF case may have a silver lining: It reveals the limits and cracks in both the theology and jurisprudence founded on the idea that life begins at conception — and points to the decline of its broad political usefulness."

      27. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
        Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

        Synopsis:

        "The Protestant-Catholic coalition on abortion formed in the 1970s, when a group of conservative political operatives, known then as the New Right, organized to colonize the GOP, and they joined forces with evangelical ministers, eventually known as the Religious Right, in order to retake the country for the white Christians they represented. Historian Seth Dowland argues that to do that, they tapped into anxiety stirred by changing sexual mores and the role of women. In the late 1970s, he has written, abortion fit into “a political philosophy that connected defense of the ‘traditional family’ with opposition to abortion, feminism and gay rights. Christian Right leaders defined traditional families as those with two heterosexual parents, with the husband as the head and, preferably, the primary breadwinner.” Even though this family structure was never archetypal in American history, “the image of a working father, a stay-at home mother, and well-scrubbed children carried significant appeal among conservatives in the wake of the 1960s.”

        “Family values’’ became a rallying cry for evangelicals, Catholics and other Christian conservatives who wanted to reconstruct the American social order on the basis of patriarchal, heterosexual and monogamous marriages. “If America is to return to original greatness,” stated Jerry Falwell, one of the most prominent leaders of the Religious Right, “we must ... support the traditional monogamous family as the only acceptable form.”

        Some of the new Religious Right, including Falwell, had a racial motivation for their political activities, seeking to protect tax benefits for “segregation academies” that didn’t admit Black students. But as Randall Balmer has previously argued in POLITICO Magazine, the operatives found that complaints about government intrusion into religious schools and universities didn’t motivate evangelicals to go to the polls. But after leafleting several churches in 1978, they discovered that abortion could. In the following years, abortion gave “Falwell and other leaders of the Religious Right a ‘respectable’ issue, opposition to abortion, one that would energize white evangelicals.”

        Anti-abortion supporters take part in a &quot;Rally for Life&quot; march outside the Texas State Capitol in Austin, Texas.
        Anti-abortion advocates take part in a "Rally for Life" march outside the Texas State Capitol. There is no denying the political utility of the idea that life begins at conception. | Suzanne Cordeiro/AFP via Getty Images

        When it came to respectability politics, what the leaders of the Religious Right understood is that reducing abortion to murder by claiming that life begins at conception would provide them with an almost unassailable high ground in debates not just about reproductive rights, but also women’s independence, family structures and the stability of the American social order. It was also a way to form an unlikely but powerful alliance between conservative Protestants and the Catholics they had persecuted for so long."

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Talk about a Deep State, lol.  This attack on women has been long in the making by, guess who, Conservatives.

        2. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, i recall seeing the debate fleshed out on talk shows as long ago as the early 1980s.

        3. gmwilliams profile image84
          gmwilliamsposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          You are correct.  It is the more fundamental Protestants who are vehemently "pro-life".  Catholics have always been against abortion, not to mention any type of birth control that isn't the so-called rhythm method.   I left Catholicism in my early 20s because of its totally atavistic stance towards reproductive freedom among other things.

      28. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 2 months ago

        We get to the heart of the misogyny and the conservative Republican's obsession regarding controlling women. But it should come with a stiff price tag next fall, and it will.

        https://www.salon.com/2024/04/05/screws … trol-bans/

        1. tsmog profile image83
          tsmogposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          First, thanks for sharing the article, Cred. Second, Wow! Also, I read the linked article:

          How an obscure 19th Century law is being weaponized against bodily autonomy and abortion rights by Salon (Mar 28, 2024)
          https://www.salon.com/2024/03/28/how-an … on-rights/

          Again, I say, Wow!

          1. Credence2 profile image78
            Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Imagine taking seriously the ramblings of a 19th century prude and apply it to 21st century society? Such is the nature of this Comstock guy and his "Act".

            I read the linked article as well, thanks for your comment.

            1. tsmog profile image83
              tsmogposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              As I said with an earlier Salon article recommended by you I appreciate their literary sense with their writing skills/style. They seem to cover the essay type - argument, well enough. Of course, IMO.

            2. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              Such is the nature of Conservatives as well.

        2. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          I think Lying Trump's chances of winning in November are falling like his stock it.

          I wonder if the Kirk in the Salon is any relation to the conservative philosopher Russell Kirk whose 10 Principles of Conservatism explain nicely why they oppress minorities and women - because that is God's design.  That said, at least Russell was educated. This other Kirk bozo barely made it out to high school.

      29. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 2 months ago

        Here is another FORESEEABLE consequence of taking away a woman's right to privacy - the Rate of Vasectomies and Tubal Ligations have increased sharply since Dobbs.  That means, of course, fewer children will be born as young people try to avoid becoming criminals when they decide to end a pregnancy.

        SAD

        https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/12/health/p … index.html

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Sounds like you would prefer to see abortions rather than vasectomies.  Yes?

          1. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            No, I personally oppose abortions.  But, what I oppose even more is taking a woman's right to chose away and putting it in the hands of politicians.

            With abortions, the woman can continue to have babies. With tubal ligations, they foreclose that possibility.

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              And it is preferable to have an abortion over having a tubal ligation...because subsequent to an abortion more children can be conceived but a ligation ends that possibility?

              I'm sorry, but I cannot agree at all.  Setting completely aside the matter of just what is being killed (a baby or an unwanted lump of flesh) the possible harm, as well as mental anguish, of an abortion far outweighs that of a tubal ligation or vasectomy.  Particularly a vasectomy as that might be reversible (as might a ligation).

      30. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
        Kathleen Cochranposted 8 weeks ago

        I think the president (whomever that may be at the moment there is a vacancy) should be taken out of the selection process entirely. Happy to add seats as the number was determined when there were only 13 states not 50. Half filled with republican selectees and half filled with democrats plus a chief justice selected by the full House of Representatives. All nominees would still be confirmed by the senate where the states have equal representations. Nominees would be selected by their parties' House judicial committees. Having a president nominate justices is playing Russian Roulette with the highest court in the land.

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

          Although not a bad idea, I would very much prefer to keep the nominations as far away from party politics as possible.  Plus, of course, your idea completely eliminates any participation by anyone not well known to one of the two political parties...adding to rather than lessening the playing of party politics in SCOTUS.

      31. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 7 weeks ago

        MAGA states have promised (and probably already have) to use citizens health records in order to prosecute them and their doctors for reproductive care the legislators frown upon.

        Biden just closed that route for these zealots to harass and threaten innocent women and their health care providers.

        https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/22/health/b … index.html

        1. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          "MAGA states have promised (and probably already have) to use citizens health records in order to prosecute them and their doctors for reproductive care the legislators frown upon."

          The context of This statement as written implies it to be factual. I would like to have a source of which "MAGA states PROMISED to use citizens reproductive health records to prosecute them and their doctors for reproductive care the legislators frown upon."   

          Provide a source. The link you posted has no mention of what you shared.

          1. Willowarbor profile image62
            Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Sadly,  red states want out of state abortion records to be available to them...why?

            "Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron signed onto a letter last month opposing a proposed federal privacy rule that would block state officials from obtaining information on residents' reproductive health care services obtained outside the state.

            Cameron was one of 19 Republican attorneys general who signed onto the June 16 letter, opposing the change proposed in April by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to amend HIPAA patient privacy rules."

            The Arkansas Times reported that Republican state Attorney General Tim Griffin wants the same thing. So does Republican state Attorney General Chris Carr of Georgia as well as Republican Attorney General Lynn Fitch of Mississippi. 19 in all signed on.

            Broadly, the letter argues that the Supreme Court gave the public and their elected representatives the power to restrict abortion, and that the Biden Administration is inappropriately interfering with the process.... States literally wanting to chase women down.

            The letter, led by Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, argues the rule change would upset the balance of safeguarding patient privacy with "permitting disclosure of information to state authorities to protect public health, safety, and welfare," along with unlawfully interfering with states’ authority to enforce their laws.

            The government having the right and ability to  collect private medical information from other states.?  No, just no.  How is this okay?  Why do my local politicians need to know about my medical procedures obtained elsewhere?

            Trump did  this


            Newsom..
            https://x.com/GavinNewsom/status/1782082600368283715

            https://www.courier-journal.com/story/n … 420153007/

            1. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              First, the video you posted is insulting to my intelligence... Sorry, no other way to put it.  Get back to me when a cop hands a woman a pregnancy test. LOL.  I would have never thought you would buy such a concept. Oh well.

              There are no laws that will aid any state in obtaining private health records period.  I have not found any state that has been successful in changing the Privacy Rule, a Federal law.

              " Only you or your personal representative has the right to access your records.

              "A health care provider or health plan may send copies of your records to another provider or health plan only as needed for treatment or payment or with your permission. "  https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individua … ermission.

              "The Privacy Rule, a Federal law, gives you rights over your health information and sets rules and limits on who can look at and receive your health information. The Privacy Rule applies to all forms of individuals' protected health information, whether electronic, written, or oral. The Security Rule is a Federal law that requires security for health information in electronic form."  https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individua … index.html

              Maybe let's stick to the here and know.

          2. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            That has been widely reported and is common knowledge; but then I forget that Lying Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN won't publish such stories in an effort to hide truth from their audience.  But, if you insist.

            https://montanafreepress.org/2023/07/19 … n-records/

            1. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              As you see citizen's health records are protected by Federal law.  Get back to me when any state wins a case against this law.  It seems you are always deep into what could be, and ignore what is.

              The Privacy Rule is a Federal law. I suggest you look to Federal Law.
              https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individua … index.html

              The truth is we have a Federal law that prevents our health records shared by anyone with whom we don't choose to share them.

      32. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 7 weeks ago

        Today was a terrible day for the continuation of the American federation.  Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments about a states right to ignore federal law, something called "nullification".  If let stand, that is the first step in the break up of the United States, which many feel is the goal of Trump and his MAGA cult.

        At issue are the competing interests of a Idaho state law that criminalizes anyone associated with a woman getting an abortion and a federal law that requires doctors to "stabilize" a patient in emergency situations and sometime that stabilization may require an abortion.

        While the Idaho law theoretically carves out an exception to save a mother's life, it is problematic because doctors have been too afraid to take the chance and have therefore jeopardized women's lives and/or organs (think uterus).  Women have to flee to a safe state to continue to live in some cases or save their uterus in others.

        One reason doctors are so afraid is that their judgement can be overruled by state lawyers, as happened in Texas not too long ago. (That came out at trial today.)

        "The dispute, stemming from the Justice Department’s marquee response to the high court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022, turns on whether federal mandates for hospital emergency room care override abortion bans that do not exempt situations where a woman’s health is in danger but her life is not yet threatened." - What you can read into that is Idaho doesn't give a damn about a woman's health short of death and the federal government (as it should) does.

        The federal gov't argues " that there was a real conflict between Idaho’s law and the federal law, known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), but she painted it as a narrow one. She stressed that, in this case,[i] the administration is not trying to interfere with Idaho’s overall ability to criminalize abortions outside of certain medical emergencies." - but protect the mothers life and limb in an emergency.  IN IDAHO, those "certain medical emergencies" in practice means "imminent death" of the mother.

        Already four of the Conservative Justices have indicated they want to side with the state and rule that any state can ignore any federal law they want (that is the intended consequence I suspect) and call it government overreach.  They want to rule that it is OK for the Idaho to take a woman's uterus if it means preventing an abortion, often of a non-viable fetus.  Isn't that a sick world in which to live?

        https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/24/politics … index.html

      33. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 6 weeks ago

        The views about the Dobbs decision to limit women's freedoms by the Conservatives is still as unpopular as ever.  65% of those polled oppose the decision (non-MAGA) while 34% (MAGA) approve.  Of those for every one who strongly support the liberty-limiting decision, TWO strongly oppose it.

        That should tilt the election against Republicans up and down the ballot given how strongly women feel about having lost some of their rights.

        https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/01/politics … index.html

      34. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 5 weeks ago

        YOU KNEW IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN!

        "Texas man wants court order to investigate woman’s out-of-state abortion"

        "Collin Davis, a resident of Brazos County, filed a legal petition in March stating that on February 20 — the day after he learned the woman intended to obtain the abortion — he retained an attorney, who sent the woman a letter requesting that she preserve all records related to her plans to terminate the pregnancy.

        According to the petition, the letter warned that he “would pursue wrongful-death claims against anyone involved in the killing of his unborn child.”
        - Damn, MAGA must be having a rapture over this.

        How sick can this kind of Conservative get?

        https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/05/us/texas … index.html

        1. gmwilliams profile image84
          gmwilliamsposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          This is insane.  No man has the right to force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy.  This "man" is demonic.   How DARE he!  It is her body, her decision, not his.

          1. MizBejabbers profile image87
            MizBejabbersposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Yes, if it's his fetus she is carrying, he should have worn some protection. Sounds like he may have been wanting a kid and she didn't. BTW, been there, done that. Hope my firstborn doesn't see this.

            1. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

              It is an interesting, and sad, conflict of individual rights.  Just the same as the right of a woman to control her own body and the Conservatives right to control it for her (alright, I am being sarcastic).

              That said, one right must give way to the other and, in my opinion, the man loses this one.

              Related, however, is the situation where the mother sues the man for child support.  In that case, it needs to go to court to determine "culpability".  At first blush, if it is rape or if the sex was with goal of producing a child (sorry about using the two in the same sentence), then the man is on the hook, in my opinion (along with going to jail in the first instance).

              Next down the line is if the couple was in a long-term relationship, then again, I think the man pays child support.

              On the other hand, if it was casual sex or a one-night stand, then I wouldn't be as quick to determine liability, although it probably would take much for me to see the other side.

            2. gmwilliams profile image84
              gmwilliamsposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

              Exactly, he should have used protection. Men have to BE SEXUALLY RESPONSIBLE also.  Women have been carrying the contraceptive burden for a long time.  It is time that men step up-don't want an unplanned pregnancy, PARTICIPATE in the birth control process.  There is absolutely no excuse that advanced forms of male birth control aren't invented.

              1. My Esoteric profile image86
                My Esotericposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                Shouldn't SHE have insisted on protection as well?  It is a two-way street. Nevertheless, I agree with the rest of your comment.

          2. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            Sadly, most Conservatives don't agree with you, only Liberals do.

            1. gmwilliams profile image84
              gmwilliamsposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

              I am not a Conservative.  I am a Liberal but not a LEFTIST, THANK YOU.

              1. My Esoteric profile image86
                My Esotericposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                Did I say you were?

                But then I wonder why you defend most conservative positions?

                1. gmwilliams profile image84
                  gmwilliamsposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                  There is such a thing as logic.  I defend logical positions.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image86
                    My Esotericposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I don't find the following conservative positions logical:

                    * A woman doesn't have a right to choose (to which you disagree with their position)

                    * Opposition to LGBTQ people's right to be themselves.

                    * Opposition to police being held accountable

                    * Opposition to freedom of religion unless it is their religion

                    * Opposition of workers right to organize to protect themselves.

                    * Belief that liberals to be Marxist, socialist, race-baiter, anti-police, anti law-and-order

                    * Belief that xenophobia is a good thing

                    * Belief that society shouldn't try to improve itself

                    * Belief that laws should not prevent discrimination

      35. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 5 weeks ago
      36. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 5 weeks ago

        https://www.salon.com/2024/05/10/katie- … -database/

        It's coming to a theatre near you, "The Handmaiden's Tale" don't be fooled by GOP diversions and distractions

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          I thought it was already here.

        2. gmwilliams profile image84
          gmwilliamsposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          +10000000000000.

      37. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 3 weeks ago

        Because of the Trump Acolytes Alito and Thomas, It is too dangerous for women to live in Louisiana, they should all move to safer states.

        https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/23/us/video … src-digvid

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

          Would you prefer that SCOTUS justices set aside their legal training and vote their conscience rather than the law?  AND that they vote only liberal, or at least however YOU feel they should?

          Or does the law take precedence, with those same justices tasked to interpret the law rather than make new law without the need for Congress?

          1. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            No, I would rather they vote based on the law, not their political and religious beliefs.

            Clearly, "precedence" means nothing to Conservatives as they keep overturning it.

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

              Ah.  Then you accept that the whole "privacy" thing was nothing but an excuse to force states to allow abortions.

              What, then, is the gripe?  The court applied the law, even though the previous one had not.  Would you prefer that nothing ever be changed in our legal system, that bad laws exist forever without removing or changing them?

              Make up your mind; either you want SCOTUS to rule according to law or according to what you want to see, regardless of what the law is.

              1. My Esoteric profile image86
                My Esotericposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                I am sorry you don't believe the Constitution doesn't guarantee YOUR right to privacy, that the State may invade YOUR privacy anytime they want.

                Me, I believe that the RIGHT TO PRIVACY is a core principle embedded in our Constitution.

                Yes, I agree, it would be nice if THIS Conservative Court would stop making up the law to fit their political and religious beliefs.

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                  If the 4th Amendment means anything at all, it would stand behind the words that represent the idea that people have the right to be left alone. These infringements upon privacy going to ridiculous levels being facilitated by the Supreme Court  passing tyranny to the state level,  does not go unnoticed.

                  Conservatives complain that liberals legislate from the bench but I see no less from the Right Wing Tribunal in charge now.

                  We are all in a lot of trouble.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image86
                    My Esotericposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Absolutely. And based on that book I think I mentioned to you, Pursuit of Happiness, our founders are turning over in their graves from what Conservatives have done, are doing, to America.

                    I just learned something that preconceived notions led me in the wrong direction on.  Thomas Jefferson famously wrote in the Declaration of Independence that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

                    Well, for 70 some odd years I have misunderstood what "unalienable" means.  I Presumed it mean something like "Natural" rights or something else along those lines.

                    It doesn't. It means rights you have that you cannot give up to others whether you want to or not. (Privacy falls under Happiness, btw.)  That is not to say the right cannot be taken away for there is no question the state can "take" your life or "take" your liberty just like you can not give up to another or have another "take" you right to your own thoughts.

                    That is also the reason why Jefferson did not include "Property" in the DOI, because it is alienable, you can give your right to property to others.

                2. wilderness profile image93
                  wildernessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Indeed, the right to privacy is of paramount concern. 

                  But it does not mean the right to keep secret your murders; it does not mean that you are guaranteed privacy while you kill children.  As usual, the pro choice camp refuses to address this all important question, instead diverting into something else.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image86
                    My Esotericposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Murders is your minority opinion and not based in law or fact.  Why do you force YOUR opinions on others to believe and jeopardize their lives in the process?  What gives you the right to do that?  If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one, but you can't tell your female neighbor she must follow YOUR personal moral code.

                    1. wilderness profile image93
                      wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                      It is not MY opinion at all, regardless of how many times to repeat that it is.

                      But it IS the opinion of millions of people; an opinion that you and others refuse to acknowledge or discuss.  Instead you pretend it does not exist and need not be considered in the ongoing fight over abortion.  I also believe, without statistics to back it, that the majority of people in this country believe, at a minimum, that sometime between fertilization and birth that zygote becomes a person; a human being with the same right to life that you have.   It is not a "minority" opinion at all but a nearly 100% one.

                      I hope your "moral code" is like mine (and I believe most people's) in that murder of children is not acceptable.  Even as you ignore the murder of the "unborn" I hope you still carry that specific moral

                      1. My Esoteric profile image86
                        My Esotericposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                        So, if you disavow that as your opinion, then you must agree your opinion (and as a matter of law) is that abortion is not murder.

                        As to relying on "millions of people", well millions of Americans supported slavery in the 1800s, so did that make it alright?? 

                        The fact is, a fetus is NOT a person until it is viable.  Only then does it gain the rights of a person that is enough to supersede a woman's right to control her own body.

                        As to your way overly broad hypothetical, even the law agrees with you there.  Just to repeat myself, the law in non-medieval states is that a fetus gains "personhood" when it becomes viable within a woman's body.

                        But even then, you now have competing rights.  Just because a fetus finally becomes a baby doesn't mean that a woman loses control of her body to the state, it just means that right is subordinated to that of the viable fetus.

                        I do agree that murder of CHILDREN is unacceptable.  But a non-viable fetus is NOT a child.  That is your personal, minority opinion and nothing more.

                        What almost all Americans DO AGREE on (minus the MAGA component) is that a woman has a right to control her own body until the point of viability. 

                        You do realize, don't you, that you are fighting for what you accuse liberals of doing, taking away personal freedom.

                      2. Credence2 profile image78
                        Credence2posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                        You still can't see the hole in your argument, people have different values as to when life begins and when a fetus is viable, and not just a clump of cells. Why is your interpretation and that of the rightwinger the ONLY correct  interpretation? Do you know where the line between fertilization and birth when the zygote becomes a person is found? That is what this debate is all about and I am not just going to concede to the Right just because it adamantly says that it has all the answers. What make you so sure?

      38. Willowarbor profile image62
        Willowarborposted 10 days ago

        This is sickening.  Cruelty really is the point.

        Texas Radio DJ Ryan Hamilton Found Wife Unconscious on the Floor After Hospital Denied Treatment for Miscarriage

        She first visited an emergency center in North Texas, the outlet reported, where doctors confirmed the fetus didn’t have a heartbeat.

        His wife was prescribed misoprostol — commonly called an “abortion drug”  although it’s used for both miscarriages and abortions — to “finish the process of what had already started at home,” Hamilton told CBS.

        His wife was sent home but after two days, she hadn’t expelled the nonviable fetus. Since she had been told to return to the emergency center if she needed to repeat the medication, she went back.

        However, this time, Hamilton says the doctor told them, “Due to the current stance, I cannot prescribe this medicine for you.”

        The family drove to another hospital — with their nine-month-old daughter in the car, telling her they were going on “an adventure” — where he said his wife was treated for four hours and doctors again confirmed that there was no fetal heartbeat.

        Although the law allows exceptions for medical emergencies, Hamilton says he was told “it was not enough of an emergency to perform a D&C,” short for dilation & curettage, a procedure where tissue inside the uterus is removed.

        He said his wife was given a higher dose of medication, and sent home.

        That’s where she called him from the bathroom, and Hamilton said found her on the floor, unconscious, with a trail of blood leading from the toilet.

        He said when they returned to the hospital, he was told she could have died.

        This is a war on women.  Please tell me a medical treatment that men are required to wait until they are at deaths  door to receive?  No, really.

        Forcing a  woman to walk around with a corpse inside of her, this is a part of Republicans pro-life schtick?

        Trump has stated that there should be some form of punishment for women who seek abortions but MAGA also seems to want to punish women in the midst of miscarriage.

        Yes, they love life so much that they don't care if the woman dies also.

        Trump did this.

        https://people.com/ryan-hamilton-wife-m … aw-8657876

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 10 days agoin reply to this

          This is absolutely horrifying, that someone should go through such a thing.

          But making it into what it is not, was never intended to be and still is not ("Cruelty really is the point") is foolish and can serve nothing but to demonize people that are trying to do what they think is right.  Even the "doctors" of the holocaust did not do their experiments out of sadism and cruelty - to claim the well meaning (but stupid) legislators are doing so reflects far more on you than on them.

          1. Willowarbor profile image62
            Willowarborposted 10 days agoin reply to this

            Cruelty isn't the point?  I beg to differ, as evidenced by SCOTUS recently entertaining one of the most extreme, sadistic anti-abortion cases yet...the Idaho law that allows doctors to perform abortions in cases where the life but not “merely” the health, of the pregnant woman is at risk.

            The ban requires doctors to treat pregnant women’s health as disposable, and the loss of their lives as an acceptable risk. 

            Politicians arguing that states do not have to allow abortions in the case of risks to women’s health, sepsis, organ failure and loss of fertility.   The court potentially affirming  these are acceptable cost of prohibiting abortions. 

            The status of American women?  in backward states, now have to beg before the courts not to face legally enforced medical negligence that will kill and maim them. All at the hands of a movement, whose insistence on criminalizing life- and health-saving abortions can have no explanation other than  sadism.

            Stupidity is at the heart of the argument. 

            There is no way to preserve the life of a nonviable embryo or fetus without preserving the life of the pregnant woman who carries it;  Idaho’s policy makes no sense if preserving fetal life is their goal. But the preservation of fetal life is not the anti-choice movement’s goal. Their goal is to inflict as much suffering on women as possible.

            What is at stake now? SCOTUS debate on the Idaho Emtala case made it clear.   What was being debated in court was how much women can be forced to suffer, how much danger they can be placed in. The anti-choice movement, and its allies on the bench, have shown once again that there is no amount that will satisfy them.

            On top of it, we have Trump saying women who receive abortions should be punished.  Yes, cruelty is the point.

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 10 days agoin reply to this

              As always, your premise is based on the idea that a fetus is not a living human being, without giving any regard at all to the opposing view.  Trying looking through your opponent's eyes for once - try to understand that opponent and what they are saying rather than simply ignoring them.

              1. My Esoteric profile image86
                My Esotericposted 9 days agoin reply to this

                Which is legally and the most accepted status of a fetus. It is only your far-right religeous views that declare it such.

                That, in of itself, is fine.  You certainly can believe that which is your unalienable right. 

                But, your premise is based on the idea that that must be the view of all people, and if it is not, it is OK to let legislatures force that view down their throats.

                Your argument of "without giving any regard at all to the opposing view" is very misleading.  As I just said, you have the right to have an opposing view and I (and I suspect Willow) recognizes that.  BUT, you do not have the right to make me have the same view at the penalty of death or harm.

                1. wilderness profile image93
                  wildernessposted 9 days agoin reply to this

                  It is the most accepted in your world.  In reality it seems about 50-50, with even more acknowledging it is a baby but still willing to kill for convenience.

                  I'm sorry, but legislation is all that keeps some from killing almost indiscriminately.  There are people out there that do not respect your right of ownership and even your right to live.  Only the law, and the force behind it, keeps you safe.  Same with that fetus; only the law, and the force behind it, keeps some from simply killing anytime they wish to. 

                  You disagree it is murder, I disagree, Willowarber disagrees, but the FACT remains that there are millions and millions that DO find it to be murder.  Address, and solve, that problem that the entire problem of abortion goes away.  But it is not addressed; it is ignored and the problem festers and grows, doesn't it?

          2. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 10 days agoin reply to this

            Their "intent" my not be to be cruel, although that is the foreseeable outcome of their trying to make other people be subject to their own personal moral code, but I wonder if you say the same about the leaders of the Inquisition.

            I am having a hard time telling the difference between that, and what most  Conservatives are trying to do to women.  Can I apply your same logic to the Inquisitionists, that they are just doing what they think is right?  Or how about the instigators of the Holocaust who proudly claimed they were doing what they thought was right.  I see no difference.

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 10 days agoin reply to this

              You are correct (IMO) - cruelty is the foreseeable outcome.  Along with saving hundreds of thousands of lives, but of course that matters not, does it?

              I feel truly sorry for you if you cannot differentiate between stretching someone on the rack until dead and saving the life of an unborn child.

              1. My Esoteric profile image86
                My Esotericposted 9 days agoin reply to this

                Since they aren't so-called "lives", no it does not; the life of the mother, who is an actual living breathing human being by ANY measure takes precedence.

                1. wilderness profile image93
                  wildernessposted 9 days agoin reply to this

                  So insistent that only you are right, that no one else could possible have the answer.

                  Of course it lives - that is obvious to even to even the most "nay-sayer" in spite of your comment to the contrary (why would you make such a comment, KNOWING better?).  Given that the mother, in cahoots with another, is the one that CAUSED the problem in the first place, it seems wrong to put her wants above the life of another.

                  But...is that your definition of the difference between lump of flesh and human being?  That it breathes?  Can you delineate just what changes are made in that instance of the first breath?  What changes in the organism itself to make it a person when it was not?

                2. GA Anderson profile image89
                  GA Andersonposted 9 days agoin reply to this

                  I bet most mothers and fathers who hear their baby's heartbeat for the first time will disagree with you. I've never been part of the 'religious right' and I know how I felt when I heard my kids' heartbeats for the first time.

                  GA

                  1. My Esoteric profile image86
                    My Esotericposted 9 days agoin reply to this

                    I don't think so since people overwhelmingly support the woman's right to a abortion. If most Americans did subscribe to the idea that a fetus with its first heartbeat is being a fully functioning human being, then we would be having a different argument I would think. 

                    I doubt any of the votes to enshrine the right to an abortion in state constitutions would have passed had that been the prevalent belief. 

                    None of the above is minimize the development progress where the heart starts beating and the wonderful impact that must have on the parents. It is a miracle in how all of that works.

                    But, that aside, the debate centers around when the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the mother.  Right now, the law pegs it at when a fetus can leave the womb and survive as a real human being.

                    At that point, a whole new debate starts when faced with the situation of who must die when giving birth will kill the mother.

                    1. wilderness profile image93
                      wildernessposted 8 days agoin reply to this

                      "But, that aside, the debate centers around when the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the mother."

                      I don't see that.  Looks to me like the one side declares that the rights of the fetus vs mother are at least equal, with perhaps the fetus taking a slightly higher position.  Along with that is the idea that the right to life absolutely trumps the right to convenience or the feelings of the mother.

                      On the other side, the rights of the mother (convenience, feelings, everything and anything) trump the rights of a fetus, including the right to live.

                      Both, as far as I can see, are nothing but assumptions, conclusions drawn without evidence or reasoning.

                      1. Willowarbor profile image62
                        Willowarborposted 8 days agoin reply to this

                        The embryo seems to have gained rights  in some states that transcend those of the very woman it is dependent on to bring it to independent viability. 

                        Do you think the right to life supersedes the right to bodily autonomy, why or why not?

                        Certainly the right to life applies well beyond the embryonic stage.  Does it not encompass the entire lifespan?

                        Suppose I need a large bone marrow transplant to survive? Should the state affirm my right to life by allowing me to use the body of another so that I may survive? 

                        Or is this right reserved solely for a clump of cells? 

                        In what other situation is one allowed to forcefully, by state sanction use the body of another to sustain life? 

                        In all other situations, the right to bodily autonomy trumps the right to life.   

                        Interestingly, as soon as that mother in Idaho delivers her forced birth baby, that state cannot force her to provide lifesaving blood to that same baby... Why does she suddenly regain rights over her own body at that point?