[Politico] Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

Jan 6 protestors wanted to overturn an election.

Roe protestors want rights that were taken away from them back.

Acting like all causes are equal is silly, they are not. Yes, one cause is actually more righteous than the other here. The people trying to protect their bodily rights vs people that were put in motion to perform a violent coup. They are not the same.

I guess you'd argue with MLK who said he understood the anger in civil rights protests and that it was expected and basically the same thing I just said above.

Democratic institutions lose respect when they start messing with people's rights...or were you too against the protests of Civil Rights?

 

If the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, a “trigger law” will take effect in Missouri, banning abortion in most cases.

While that idea might seem straightforward, St. Louis University law professor Marcia McCormick said its language is ambiguous and leaves room for many interpretations when it comes to other areas related to conception, such as emergency contraception.

Missouri’s trigger law is a near-complete ban on abortion, including in cases of rape and incest. The law allows for abortions only in medical emergencies that immediately threaten a pregnant person’s life or will create “irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

McCormick called that a narrow definition.

“The doctor has to do more than just believe that death is imminent, or that the serious impairment of a major bodily function is imminent,” she explained on Friday’s St. Louis on the Air. “That belief has to be reasonable so most other doctors would have to agree.”

Passed in 2019, the law would immediately go into effect if the governor or the attorney general certify that Roe has been repealed, or the state legislature passes a resolution saying so.

The law would make it a class B felony to induce an abortion, even for medical providers. That charge comes with a sentencing range of five to 15 years. The trigger law does include a stipulation that a woman pursuing an abortion cannot be charged, but McCormick questions that.

Abortions would be banned in all stages of pregnancy, even the first weeks before most people even know they are pregnant.

 

we know what they’re coming for next…abortion is just the beginning

Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., suggested Tuesday that the legality of interracial marriage — on which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1967 — was an issue that was best left for individual states to decide. Hours later, however, he issued a statement attempting to clarify his remarks.

Braun was fielding questions from reporters in Indiana about the possibility that Roe v. Wade, the high court decision that protects a woman’s right to have an abortion, would be overturned later this year by the Supreme Court. The senator said he felt that such a decision would not qualify as “judicial activism” because he did not agree with the original 1973 ruling. Overturning Roe, Braun argued, would put the country back into a neutral position regarding abortion.

“This should be something where the expression of individual states are able to weigh in on these issues through their own legislation, through their own court systems. Quit trying to put the federal government in charge,” Braun said.

He was then asked about the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which banned states from enacting laws that restricted interracial marriages.

“When it comes to issues, you can’t have it both ways,” Braun responded. “When you want diversity to shine within our federal system, there are going to be rules and proceedings that are going to be out of sync, maybe, with what other states would do. It’s the beauty of the system.”

Braun was then asked to confirm whether he meant he would be OK with the Supreme Court leaving the issue of interracial marriage up to the states.

“Yes,” Braun replied. “I think that’s something, if you’re not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you’re not going to be allowed to have your cake and eat it too.”

then after catching heat, he attempted to moon walk his statements back…

Early Tuesday evening, Braun issued a statement saying he “misunderstood” the line of questioning about interracial marriage.

"Earlier during a virtual press conference I misunderstood a line of questioning that ended up being about interracial marriage, and let me be clear on that issue — there is no question the Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind based on race. That is not something that is even up for debate, and I condemn racism in any form, at all levels and by any states, entities, or individuals,” Braun said.

 

this is a hostile takeover by MAGA and the Christian Taliban…they failed on January 6th, but they are gearing up for another attack

 

Contraceptives bans are ridiculous! It's not like people are all going to refrain from sex before marriage. More knocked up teens and more folks with Aids, Herpes, and other diseases will follow. That's just extreme stupidity.

Then again, Tennessee wants to allow 18 year olds to carry a weapon without a permit when they aren't even allowed to drink until 21. Real stupid.

 

you want to to have guns drunk? They are not old enough to handle that. Think about it.

 

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Editorial: Alito's draft ruling is so self-contradictory that it calls court's judgment into question

By the Editorial Board
May 5, 2022

The Supreme Court draft ruling overturning Roe v. Wade raises just as many arguments and counterarguments as the original ruling that Justice Samuel Alito excoriated in his opinion, leaked this week to Politico. Alito’s assertion that abortion rights don’t fall under the 14th Amendment, and that the Constitution makes no mention of abortion as a right, calls into question a wide range of other supposed rights for which no mention of any kind appears in the Constitution.

Alito basically would establish an entirely new bar for basic rights that cannot be met under a strict reading of the Constitution — not just including divisive issues such as gay marriage but also whether there is a right for gun owners to possess ammunition. The Constitution doesn’t specifically spell out a right for interracial couples to marry. Under Alito’s rationale, all those supposedly settled issues, widely accepted as basic rights, now could be subject to challenge.

Alito argues the opposite, saying that this draft ruling applies only to the rights of the unborn. But under his rationale, the Constitution offers no spelled-out rights to the unborn. In fact, it specifically excludes the unborn from having rights under the very 14th Amendment that Alito dissects as the basis for the conservative majority’s opinion.
Consider the amendment’s opening phrase: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof …” followed by the stipulation that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,” without due legal process and equal protection.

That opening paragraph specifically applies to women as a subset of all people who qualify as having been born — and it specifically does not apply to those who have not yet been born.

These are painful words to parse in such a literal way when talking about humans’ lives, but that’s the standard Alito himself is setting. This is what the Constitution says and doesn’t say. Yet Alito and the conservative majority have decided that the rights of the unborn supersede those of women even though no wording in the Constitution specifies any such distinction.

This ruling, if it survives, could force an impregnated woman in 33 states to give birth, in some cases like Missouri regardless of whether she is the victim of rape or incest.

Let the states decide without court intervention, Alito says. Yet court conservatives do favor taking away states’ rights on other divisive issues, such as limiting gun ownership and usage, even when the Constitution is squishy about such rights.

It appears that the majority only seeks a literal interpretation of the Constitution when it suits conservative justices’ political or religious beliefs. But when the wording doesn’t suit them, they simply ignore it. A court whose politics overshadow reasoned constitutional interpretation is a court whose legitimacy deserves all the public scrutiny it’s now receiving.

https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/ed...xF9RjGrtJ4L4&spot_im_highlight_immediate=true

 

Civil Rights protests only gained steam through non violence and peaceful subversion of the law. Going to the homes of public servants, harassing their families, and phoning death threats is what vigilantes did to civil rights leaders when the government couldn't silence them and public opinion started turning.

We should be better than this. We should respect the Rule of Law and our election process. Instead, we have parties fomenting distrust with our institutions and our own people for their own gain. The Capital Riot was a low point for America, and so was cities like Portland and Seattle shutting down because the peaceful protestors grew impatient and chaotic in the span of weeks to months.

These are acts of distrust, instant gratification and implicit votes of no confidence. Amplifying that violence or harassment is pretty much ******** the bed then blaming it on your partner or dog.

It's still one house, and we need more people to clean it up rather than tearing it down

 

Of course not. There is a reason the drinking age is 21. That same logic should apply to guns. The prefrontal cortex isn't even fully developed until around 25 years of age. Thus, a teenager hasn't developed their executive functions of their brain yet.

Without their prefrontal cortex fully developed they lack the proper reasoning, problem solving, comprehension, and impulse control of mature adults. The ability to control impulses is huge with anyone carrying a gun, no matter how mature they or their parents think they are.

There's a reason so many young people old enough to get into bars lose their cool and kill someone outside a bar over some stupid argument. If they are under 25 they still don't have a fully mature brain when it comes to decision making and impulse control. Even 21 seems illogical for gun ownership or drinking if you think about it.

 

I certainly agree drinking age should be raised to 25. A drug that reduces impulse control in someone with little impulse control to begin with is a dangerous mix.

 

That analysis is, quite frankly, terrible. To bear arms is not to limit someone to an unloaded weapon. Bearing arms means to carry all the necessary equipment for combat upon one's person. The author would have a point if the 2nd Amendment said the right to carry a firearm shall not be infringed, but it doesn't. Madison even clarified that cannons on a ship to attack pirates fall under the 2nd Amendment. The ellipses employed in the one other textual analysis that was attempted are being used quite strategically. The part before the ellipses is part of the definition of a citizen. Later, there are privileges and immunities reserved to citizens, and then there are the rights of people. Two separate categories. Like Madison with the 2nd, the authors of the 14th Amendment didn't seem to make any Constitutional arguments against abortion bans when they were in power. The rest is an appeal to emotion.

 

It’s just a bunch of fat losers that want to ban contraceptives. Sex is fun. We aren’t bound by a stupid plagiarized book.

 

Freedom sure does have different meanings by those type of Republicans. They shouldn't be forcing their religious beliefs on anyone. Next they will be outlawing religions they don't agree with. It's nuts. To even propose something like that is ludicrous.

 

Unfortunately, using contraceptives is not a constitutional right, right @StupidMoniker ?

 

I don't think that was the only reason though. MLK Jr wasn't liked when he was alive, we clean him up to be what he was now but he excused riots, saying they were the language of the unheard. Over 60% of americans at the time didn't like Dr. King, this is despite him being a peaceful protestor.

People then saw him as a radical harming racial relations, not at all helping them.

All the same, the kind of protest where people are protesting in front of a legislator's house is the exact kind of protest King would have approved of and led. King was arrested numerous times for his demonstrations that were all peaceful, like the one above actually that is being called radical and equated to violence by many but that was nothing compared to many protests for Civil Rights.

My stance on civil disobedience is the same one the founders and MLK Jr had on it, people might think it's radical but it seemed all of those people believed that at some point a democracy loses its respect and things will get violent. I think things start to get that way when governments start messing with human rights. At that point people say a line has been crossed.

I don't think Roe v Wade being overturned is that line, I'd be surprised to see a violent protest...but let this GOP continue to strip down rights, go after condoms, sex, gay marriage, and watch the reaction. It won't be pretty.

 

I should be able to **** whatever hole I want legally and safely if it’s consensual. If anyone is against that they’re just mad because they can’t get any.

 

NPR reporter says ‘leading theory’ on SCOTUS leak is conservative clerk
https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...-theory-on-scotus-leak-is-conservative-clerk/

Conservatives to stop caring about the leak in 3...2...1...

 

Dont give two ***** about this, but I did research.

Right now, in California, a doctor can decide a female is mentally unfit to bear a child right at child birth.

That's been admitted.

 

Unlikely