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

Charles Koch may not be conservativeish or billionaireish enough for him though. Try harder

 

Surely ye jest?

Scott Lloyd, Tim Murphy, Scott DesJarlais, Elliot Broidy, the list goes on... These aren't liberals...they're Republicans who are clearly rules for thee not for me people AKA hypocrites. They all asked a girlfriend or mistress (yeah, good ole GOP values LMAO) to have an abortion and participated in it happening by taking them there and/or paying for the procedure. Might want to rethink that totally incorrect statement.

 

I knew you were a demented fool but this is just sick.

Society needs a higher birth rate? In what f***ed up dimension did you come up with that idiocy?

"If you conceive a child, then you must bear the responsibility of raising the child.": So your position is that, no matter what...rape or incest...a woman should carry to term AND raise the child. Adoption is now out? What kind of moral code do you live by? How is more people AND more people living in poverty by any means a good thing? Do you really think this is good for the economy? More people on the government dime? What in the entire f*** is wrong with you? Please...lay off the paint chips in your mom's basement. The lead poisoning is finally eroding what's left of your brain.

I knew the dumbass right position of actually being only pro-birth was the real goal not being said out loud...but here it is

 

Poor Matt Gaetz is going to have to think twice about paying 16 year old girls for sex when abortion, contraception and sodomy are illegal.

 

The conversation is different today though because there are pills.

States are already trying to ban such pills and ban even the mailing of such pills which might be another SCOTUS case down the line....but there will 100% be a black market for these pills.

These people are NOT stopping abortion, I'm sure they know that. They just want to enforce their religious rules on as many people as possible. That's why a lot of people pro-life are STILL against contraception. You'd think it would make sense to be pro-life but also for contraception...but they have to be against that too because the point isn't to save babies, the point is to regulate a woman's sex life.

With abortion and contraception a woman is sexually free. She can have sex without fear of having a baby and thus she can sleep with a hundred guys a year if she likes. The GOP's Christian base want to punish such women

 

The nation is suffering from a baby shortage.

We should encourage/incentivize more adoption with a solid support network, and find ways to reduce the shame for pregnant out of wedlock women.

 

you know who else executed his plans well? Hitler.

 

That's debatable. Early in the 3rd Reich Hitler was "successful" because the German Oligarchs who were fearful most of taxes by the Germans voting for a liberal... yep... and then funded the German war machine in the late 1930's that then had two successes.... Czech and Poland. Those two successes had little to do with Hitler and more to do with the funding of his war machine, and German engineering of some of the most elite tanks & artillery ever created that overwhelmed Poland in a way that made other countries fold out of fear.

Then came Hitler's lust, evil ambitions, and narcissism. He so overextended the German army and set his ambitions to global domination that eventually led to his fall.

That is WW2 in Europe in it's most simplest explanation ever, but yeah...Hitler did not execute his plans well at all. He only got to where he got prior to his downfall off the bankroll of German business oligarchs making a bet on him to fund his war machine, and some really talented German engineers. He also had very seasoned generals with the recent experiences of WW1, and he had a propaganda machine that had full control of the message in Germany with precision like brainwashing mechanics.

......

The GOP is already over extending themselves even before they get power. The Democrats still have a majority and the Republicans are acting like they've already been voted in for a 20 year term.

They have no check on their most obnoxious, and most radical leaders like Marjorie Taylor Greene, and their plan's rely on having a friendly Elon Musk there to drive their narrative as a modern day Goebbels....hardly what I would consider a safe bet for the right long term. The guy wants Electric cars sold in red states... not really a super friendly ally to the real GOP oligarchs in the fossil fuel industry, and their allies abroad in Saudi Arabia, Russia, and UAE.

All this is to say I think we should stop awarding people who take power in these ways or inflict harm on others as "successes." Vladamir Putin's war in Ukraine is hurting the world in every way possible, but that doesn't mean that what he is doing is a "success" by any stretch even for Russia. Inflicting harm, pain, and suffering isn't a "success" people.

 

No one who begins a conflict in Russian territory in the winter is executing their plan well.

 

Absolutely that is true, and there are others, even traditional conservative rights! The 14th is very complicated and has been used for like 90% (perhaps a slight exagerration) of all ConLaw cases. The right to be a parent comes from the substantive due process clause interpretation of the 14th - in Oklahoma, they used to sterilize unfit mothers. The right to raise your kids comes from the 14th - Quakers can take their kids out of school (was against state law) and raise them as farmers.

The point is every single one of these substantive rights have been debated and can be debated under differing grounds. Not all were solely on 1 part, but some were - Due Process of the Law. Loving had an Equal Protection claim. Lawrence had an equal protection claim that went unanswered, IIRC, and was resolved solely under substantive due process, so that's going to be an interesting one.

The point is there are so many of these, and what happens is fair judges, at least intellectually honest ones, try to come up with a system or legal philosophy that allows them to make decisions in these gray cases. Some are more honest than other (Alito is a dishonest liar; Thomas is just a loon - dishonest at times too, but mostly looney). But, you can be fair and honest and have a legit legal philosophy that precludes abortion rights at a certain level and protects others. I'm just saying it's complicated.

And ultimately, should judges be making these decisions on these complicated issues that can be interpreted in multiple directions? Should a super majority be required? And I'm actually one who believes in the 9th. I believe in Lincoln's intepretation vs. Douglass. So even if unwritten rights exists, what is the best way to operationalize them and how do you make decisions? It's not 100% clear that abortion should be protected from a ConLaw perspective and it's not 100% clear that it shouldn't.

 

Overnight, libs have pivoted to the position that healthcare decisions should be between a patient and her doctor, when for the last two years they pushed for vaccine mandates and would not offer people that did not want to get jabbed that same respect. Also overnight, there does not seem to be ambiguity anymore as to what a "woman" is when they have exhaustingly tried to erase the concept of genders altogether.

The Left is the party that constantly cuts off its nose to spite its face. That's what happens when a party is not built on any core belief system, they just pinball here and there.

 

This is so intellectually dishonest...

Vaccines are and have always been a separate issue. You getting vaccinated affects others, you having an abortion affects no one but you. We've been for vaccine mandates for decades now with little fuss. This applies more to the conservative argument, you're projecting the conservative argument to others when most people for Vax mandates would say they were for it because it affects others.

As for the woman thing, that's just silly. Liberals took the position that a trans-woman is also a woman. Nothing more than that, not that women do not exist.

 

Right. You can almost make any legal argument for anything. I don't really care for any of that legal stuff - way out of my field - but I do know when things are going backward and where the dangers lie. All these rights granted less than 100 years ago are all on shaky ground once Roe is overruled. I'm sure you know better what is on shaky ground (marriage, contraception, sexual activity, how to raise your kids, and so on). Recent precedents are history. Whoever has the power can de/legalize any rights in whatever direction to their liking.

 

Delete your account.

 

Make me.

 

This is a good point, bodily autonomy was flipped flopped on by some when it came to the vaccine, we never had a national, statewide, county-wide, or city-wide general vaccine mandate for any age group, but there were some job-specific and activity-specific mandates across varying levels.

Bodily autonomy is a human right, and the argument you are making goes both ways. How many people support banning abortion and refuse vaccine mandates? The same exact hypocrisy in reverse

 

The deceased baby begs to differ.

 

Reminder that 26 States are ready to run with this.

26 States Are Certain or Likely to Ban Abortion Without Roe: Here’s Which Ones and Why | Guttmacher Institute



States Certain to Ban Abortion
If Roe were overturned or fundamentally weakened, 22 states have laws or constitutional amendments already in place that would make them certain to attempt to ban abortion as quickly as possible. Anti-abortion policymakers in several of these states have also indicated that they will introduce legislation modeled after the Texas six-week abortion ban.

By the time the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the Mississippi case, there will be nine states in this group with an abortion ban still on the books from before Roe v. Wade, 13 states with a trigger ban tied to Roe being overturned, five states with a near-total abortion ban enacted after Roe, 11 states with a six-week ban that is not in effect and one state (Texas) with a six-week ban that is in effect, one state with an eight-week ban that is not in effect and four states whose constitutions specifically bar a right to abortion. Some states have multiple types of bans in place.


Pre-Roe ban: Law enacted before 1973 and never removed

“Trigger” ban: Law designed to be “triggered” and take effect automatically or by quick state action if Roe no longer applies

Near-total ban: Law enacted after Roe to prohibit abortion under all or nearly all circumstances (several of this type are currently blocked by court order)

Six-week ban: Law prohibiting abortion after six weeks of pregnancy (one in effect)

Eight-week ban: Law prohibiting abortion after eight weeks of pregnancy (none in effect)

State constitution bars protection: Constitution amended to prohibit any protection for abortion rights

1. Alabama—Pre-Roe ban, Near-total ban, State constitution bars protection
2. Arizona—Pre-Roe ban
3. Arkansas—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban, Near-total ban
4. Georgia—Six-week ban
5. Idaho—Trigger ban, Six-week ban
6. Iowa—Six-week ban
7. Kentucky—Trigger ban, Six-week ban
8. Louisiana—Trigger ban, Near-total ban, Six-week ban, State constitution bars protection
9. Michigan—Pre-Roe ban
10. Mississippi—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban, Six-week ban
11. Missouri—Trigger ban, Eight-week ban
12. North Dakota—Trigger ban, Six-week ban
13. Ohio—Six-week ban
14. Oklahoma—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban (effective November 1, 2021), Near-total ban, Six-week ban
15. South Carolina—Six-week ban
16. South Dakota—Trigger ban
17. Tennessee—Trigger ban, Six-week ban, State constitution bars protection
18. Texas—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban, Six-week ban
19. Utah—Trigger ban, Near-total ban
20. West Virginia—Pre-Roe ban, State constitution bars protection
21. Wisconsin—Pre-Roe ban
22. . Wyoming—Trigger ban

 

No.

 

Babies are born.