1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

They are coming for Birth Control next

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by SamFisher, Jun 24, 2022.

  1. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,469
    Likes Received:
    110,431
    well, okay, but if you look at those scores (and not to make too much of that particular method, I'm sure there are others that will come up with different results), all six "conservative" justices are closer to the center than is Sotomayor. And the conservative justice who comes closest to her in distance from the center (Thomas), weighs in at just over 3 whereas she weighs in at almost 4:

    Screen Shot 2022-06-24 at 8.37.08 PM.png

    Again, not to make too much of Martin-Quinn scores, but it appears that as a group (4 of 6 of them anyway) the conservative justices are far less ideological than the liberal ones.
     
  2. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    37,714
    Likes Received:
    18,912
    I mean, it really depends on what is considered neutral here but I appreciate you sharing that graph. I don't think of Roberts as an ideologue, nor Kavanaugh or N.G. Like I said, I think it's the other 3 but you're right that ACB doesn't have much of a record yet.
     
    Os Trigonum likes this.
  3. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    23,888
    Likes Received:
    19,692
    Women are going to require vasectomy passports.
     
    TheJuice likes this.
  4. Roscoe Arbuckle

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2014
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    2,950
    Bottom line: Essentially nothing changes, other than possible mileage, which is kinda Biden's fault, right?

    We literally have a guy with a cheat sheet I would give to my 4 year old.

    You guys **** the bed on this. You need to own it.
     
  5. ROXRAN

    ROXRAN Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,936
    Likes Received:
    4,250
    I saw the cheat sheet, that’s embarrassing

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Roscoe Arbuckle likes this.
  6. Roscoe Arbuckle

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2014
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    2,950
    It is embarassing. I got nothing.
     
  7. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    58,732
    Likes Received:
    36,182
    Who says vasectomies should remain legal? Should be left up to the states.
     
  8. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    58,732
    Likes Received:
    36,182
    In all seriousness if you do have kids and your "keeping it real" bbs act is your real life act, I hope you get some help for their sake.
     
  9. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    23,888
    Likes Received:
    19,692
    Seriously though. How far does this go when you let extremists govern our country from the Supreme Court?? Based on what Catholics firmly teach, birth control is another form of abortion because you are taking away a theoretical life. So what’s the difference with a vasectomy or getting your tubes tied??

    If birth control has to be banned then vasectomies also should be illegal under Christian fundamentalist laws that we now are supposed to follow every day because one ******* lost the popular vote by 3 million votes but just happened to draw a straight with the electoral college.

    The very thing the colonist came here to avoid we are allowing to become a reality in the fact that we are now being governed by one religion only and do not have freedom of religion. It’s that simple now that Christian Nationalism is the law of the land.
     
    ROCKSS and TheJuice like this.
  10. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    58,732
    Likes Received:
    36,182
    Like I said and others said earlier - there's no reason for them not to start banning any form of birth control or literally anything related to reproduction if you're going to trash Roe and Griswold - I mean,they straight up admitted it!

    Frankly, there's nothing technically stopping the SCt from overruling Brown and no doubt many of them would like to.

    All of these things - making it easier to assemble armed paramilitaries by invalidating gun laws, gutting of civil rights laws and the right to privacy, the war on voting rights - these are all part of the same authoritarian program.

    They all relate to each other and are basically doing the work that Ginni Thomas failed to get done on January 6, when the President & GOP attempted a violent overhtrow of the government and to murder its leaders.
     
    TheJuice and FranchiseBlade like this.
  11. CCorn

    CCorn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    21,378
    Likes Received:
    21,097
    No taxation without protected ejaculation
     
    Sajan, Nook, Andre0087 and 2 others like this.
  12. Amiga

    Amiga I get vaunted sacred revelations from social media
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    21,710
    Likes Received:
    18,487
    Opinion | The court wants to take the country back centuries - The Washington Post

    It gives me no joy to say that my prediction in April that the Supreme Court was set to launch a war on modern America — on its social and legal progress over decades — was accurate. In a tone more reminiscent of a MAGA rally than a high court, the majority Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization opinion overturning the right to abortion drips with disdain for women’s concerns about personal autonomy and for the principle of stare decisis.

    As bad as this particular opinion is, the broader picture is about much more than abortion.

    The right-wing court wants to lock 21st-century America into the Founders’ world or, at the latest, the late 19th century, conveniently skipping past the parts of history that disfavor its cramped view of individual rights. Women, minorities, gay people and others once had little political, economic or social power. And so they will again, if the court gets its way.

    ...

    Why bother with all this selective, fatuous historical argument? This is where it gets scary and goes well beyond abortion. The court insists that our rights under the 14th Amendment were fixed in 1868. We therefore get a perverse result, as the dissent explains:

    Because laws in 1868 deprived women of any control over their bodies, the majority approves States doing so today. Because those laws prevented women from charting the course of their own lives, the majority says States can do the same again. Because in 1868, the government could tell a pregnant woman — even in the first days of her pregnancy — that she could do nothing but bear a child, it can once more impose that command.​

    Women were denied lots of rights in 1868. Only in the 20th century did some states affirm their right to hold property or take out credit or hold certain professions. Gay people and minor children had no rights to speak of, nor did the physically or mentally disabled. This court declares we are stuck with the precise state of the law pre-civil rights, pre-women’s rights, pre-modern. And herein rest the absurdity and danger of a Supreme Court unmoored from precedent and unconcerned with the impact of its decisions on today’s America.

    Still, perhaps my prediction was off by 100 years. It’s not the 1960s to which the right-wing court wants to take us but the 1860s. That radical, extreme view virtually guarantees outcomes in conflict with diverse, modern America. The notion that liberty and equality are ever expanding is kaput. The moral universe is bending backward.

    How radical is this? Well, Justice Clarence Thomas provided the answer by arguing in his concurring opinion that the court should reconsider rights going well beyond abortion. President Biden was right to focus on the import of this: “[Thomas] explicitly called to reconsider the right of marriage equality, the right of couples to make their choices on contraception. This is an extreme and dangerous path the court is now taking us on.”

    So it’s not right to say “Roe is on the ballot” in November. The 21st century is on the ballot. At risk is the America in which the definition of equality has expanded, in which the state is prohibited from micromanaging our lives, in which one’s right to make personal decisions is not governed by Zip code.

    ...

    Many thought Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) was grossly exaggerating when he declared in 1987: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, Blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors on midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the door of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.” It turns out he was simply premature — and failed to foresee a five-person majority of Robert Borks.
     
    TheJuice likes this.
  13. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,469
    Likes Received:
    110,431
  14. Xerobull

    Xerobull You son of a b!tch! I'm in!

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    33,254
    Likes Received:
    30,754
    It's not that minorities **** more (I don't know if they do or not).

    It's means & demographics. White people as a whole, who have more income and wealth, have more means to acquire birth control and abortions even if those items are outlawed.
     
    Andre0087 likes this.
  15. Amiga

    Amiga I get vaunted sacred revelations from social media
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    21,710
    Likes Received:
    18,487
    Just 8 Republicans joined Democrats in voting to protect access to contraception.

    Here Are the 8 Republicans Who Voted to Protect Access to Contraception (businessinsider.com)

    Eight Republicans broke from their party's ranks to support a Democratic proposal Thursday that would prevent states from limiting access to contraception.

    By a 228-195 vote, the House of Representatives passed a measure that states access to contraception "is a fundamental right." The bill, which now heads to the Senate, was introduced following the US Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and rescind the federal right to abortion, with Justice Clarence Thomas arguing that the decision should also lead the court to reconsider past rulings on same-sex marriage and birth control.

    In the Senate, the fate of the bill is unclear. It would need the support of at least 10 Republicans and all 50 Democrats to pass, and it's uncertain if Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will bring the bill to the floor.

    Although no states currently ban contraception, experts have told Insider that some forms — such as Plan B and IUDs — could be construed as terminating a pregnancy and fall under new, restrictive abortion bans that define "life" as beginning at the moment of fertilization.
     
    Nook and No Worries like this.
  16. Amiga

    Amiga I get vaunted sacred revelations from social media
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    21,710
    Likes Received:
    18,487
    157 House Republicans voted against marriage equality.

    Conservative beautifully coherent and consistent arguments:

    2004 - Court shouldn't decide, it's Congress's job.
    2022 - Congress shouldn't decide it's the Court's job.


    Once Hysterical on Gay Marriage, Conservatism Now Incoherent (nymag.com)

    In 2004, the Republican Party was united in anger at the idea that judges would seize the issue of gay marriage from its rightful place in the legislative arena. “We will not stand for judges who undermine democracy by legislating from the bench and try to remake America by court order,” insisted President George W. Bush. The Republican Party platform that year declared, “We urge Congress to use its Article III power to enact this into law.” National Review denounced “this campaign by legal activists and their judicial accomplices.” “The only question is whether the constitutional status of marriage will be determined by unelected judges or the American people,” claimed the Alliance for Marriage.

    Conservatives may finally get their wish. The matter of gay marriage is finally coming for a vote before what they have always insisted is its rightful venue: Congress. And yet, far from expressing gratitude that Congress is finally exerting its sacred Article III powers, conservatives are angry that elected officials are now meddling in business properly settled by the courts.


    The old danger of activist judges has passed, and now conservative principle requires the party to take a stand against activist … legislators.
     
    Sajan, Nook, Andre0087 and 2 others like this.
  17. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    15,052
    Likes Received:
    2,091
    What is alive? Undergoing biological processes, such as: growth, metabolism, motion, circulation, respiration, cognition, reaction, etc. What is human? Something that has human DNA. What is a human life? An entity, not a part of an existing human, that has human DNA and is alive. So yes, a fertilized egg is the same as a fetus is the same as a newborn in regards to this debate. Notice I made no mention of souls or the bible or God or anything, purely science.
    Wasn't it the Roe court that violated that mandate? There was no right to abortion (it was illegal in a majority of states), and then suddenly there was, along with a trimester system where different rules applied that was made up out of whole cloth. What law were they interpreting to make that happen? Dobbs was interpreting the ultimate law of the United States, the Constitution, and saying none of this Roe nonsense (or subsequent Casey nonsense) is in here, you can outlaw abortion after 15 weeks in Oklahoma if you want. I don't see how anyone can read Roe and Dobbs and think there is more support in the Constitution for Roe.
    Does that mean Plessy v. Ferguson should have been left in place and that Brown v. Board of Education is actually what destroyed the credibility of the court?
    This should be where the court goes next, stopping Congress from exceeding its enumerated powers. The Constitution doesn't empower Congress to decide what is a fundamental right. It empowers Congress to pass laws for the purpose of collecting taxes, paying bills, building an army and a navy and a militia, making courts and roads, regulating commerce between the several states, and a few other specific things. It further empowers Congress to pass laws necessary and proper to meeting these very limited responsibilities. Congress was never empowered to say what you could or could not consume, who you can or cannot sleep with, what you can or cannot do with your own body, who you do or do not do business with at your hotel, etc. These are outside of the purview of the federal government. Congress has no power to create a right to contraception outside of proposing a Constitutional Amendment. If the Senate Republicans are too craven to prevent this power grab, the court should do it and trim a LOT of the United States Code in the process.
     
  18. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    37,714
    Likes Received:
    18,912

    And yet science doesn't answer philosophical questions like when is something alive or dead. So how can this be purely science? Let me restate that - the question of when a human life begins isn't answered by science. That's not how science works.

    Also, you can argue that even if you say a single cell is a "human life" it does not mean it is a human being. And what confers rights? I would argue that it is not a human being, but the precursor to one.
     
  19. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    53,674
    Likes Received:
    41,554
    Under the general welfare clause of the Constitution would give Congress power to address things like food and drug safety. Hotels that cater to travelers would apply to interstate commerce. For that matter businesses that do do business across state lines would be subject to interstate commerce.
     
    Nook, Andre0087 and Xerobull like this.
  20. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,469
    Likes Received:
    110,431
    not sure here the question is about "life" per se; I think there's a chance you both are talking past one another because the philosophical / non-scientific issue has to do with what philosophers call "moral status" or "moral considerability." Even animals are morally considerable: we believe it is wrong to inflict gratuitous harm on animals for no reason. In this ways non-human animals possess a type of moral status.

    Big topic, probably deserves its own thread.
     
    Amiga likes this.

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now