Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

[nhytgbvfeco2]

1% currently but why does that actually matter? Are saying that women should be forced to carry to term a pregnancy as the result of rape?

I'm sure most states will allow abortion in case of rape.

[Lord Thesaurian]

This is a Supreme Court that would overturn Brown v. Board of Education.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Leftists are already working hard on that:

At many U.S. universities, the tendency to self-segregate has become a familiar and accepted occurrence, evident in a wide array of college settings including housing and social gatherings, classes and training events, protests, and grievance sessions, and even separate commencement events. In many ways, this trend represents a return to the “separate but equal” doctrine ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka (1954) as unconstitutional, which gave birth to the Civil Rights Movement and integration.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1263825.pdf

[irontaino]

1. You're veering wildly off topic now.

2. A handful of student groups is the best you got?

[Muizer]

Not a surprise, the party of individual liberty and small government has been dead set on regulating women's bodies for literal decades.

It's a religiously motivated infringement of individual rights. It's a form of tyranny really.

[Lord Thesaurian]

It's a religiously motivated infringement of individual rights. It's a form of tyranny really.

Even if forbidding the euthanasia of human beings were a violation of civil rights (it isn’t), that’s not what SCOTUS has done anyway. Democrats could pass federal abortion protections tomorrow if they wanted. I won’t hold my breath.

[Sir Adrian]

Yeah, the Democrats and the so-called "progressive" "liberals" are going to do absolutely nothing because they do not really care about women or abortions. They will milk this for votes as much as they can and if possible actively try to make things worse for the pro-deathers to amplify the effect.

Be a shame if conservative politicians were also trying to take actions to limit contraceptives...oh wait.

That article is full of might, could, would, and can only scrounge up a completely unrelated example of a senator who tried to remove IUDs from Medicaid. Leaving aside the absolute insanity and claiming that Medicaid should be paying for IUDs, this is fairly weak-sauce example in a world where condoms and diaphragms are almost literally a dime a dozen and the proposal was not even targeting the contraception angle, but simply to remove unnecessary procedures from what is supposed to be a government run emergency medical relief fund for the needy.


If you have any other proof of this "conservative" conspiracy against contraception I am eager to hear it but until then you simply do not have a leg to stand on.

A fetus isn't someone, a clump of cells should not have more rights than a person.

"Because I said so" is not an argument friend Irontanio. Surely you know this.

It's a religiously motivated infringement of individual rights. It's a form of tyranny really.

Abortion is not a right and the religious beliefs of the 6 justices who voted yes is not public knowledge. Also overturning Roe vs Wade does not impede abortion, it simply allows states to make up their own mind.

[irontaino]

That article is full of might, could, would, and can only scrounge up a completely unrelated example of a senator who tried to remove IUDs from Medicaid. Leaving aside the absolute insanity and claiming that Medicaid should be paying for IUDs, this is fairly weak-sauce example in a world where condoms and diaphragms are almost literally a dime a dozen and the proposal was not even targeting the contraception angle, but simply to remove unnecessary procedures from what is supposed to be a government run emergency medical relief fund for the needy.


If you have any other proof of this "conservative" conspiracy against contraception I am eager to hear it but until then you simply do not have a leg to stand on.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-t...152417580.html

Straight from the horse's mouth. Justice Thomas is advocating the court reconsider earlier rulings including the 1965 Griswold v Connecticut case regarding contraception. Contraception is about to become a political issue again. I always hear conservatives barking for the gold old days. Well we are definitely headed to the old days.

"Because I said so" is not an argument friend Irontanio. Surely you know this.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Sir Adrian]

Again, should, could, would. Let me know when it actually happens.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The most powerful Democrat politician has already addressed such issues.

Nothing in your link mentions Biden condemning his fellow Democrats for calling the court and its decision “illegitimate….extremist…” etc while urging the public to “defy” the ruling and to “take to the streets” and “fight.” Not to mention Psaki explicitly stating that the POTUS “welcomes and encourages” illegal activity:

We certainly continue to encourage [protests] outside of judges’ homes and that’s the president’s position.

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507

[Muizer]

Abortion is not a right and the religious beliefs of the 6 justices who voted yes is not public knowledge. Also overturning Roe vs Wade does not impede abortion, it simply allows states to make up their own mind.

Tell me then what else one would appeal to to demonstrate 'we the people' have a stake in a woman's decision to have an abortion. A stake so high we are prepared to deprive them of a medical procedure. Is that like "just because we don't like the idea" or something?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Tell me then what else one would appeal to to demonstrate 'we the people' have a stake in a woman's decision to have an abortion. A stake so high we are prepared to deprive them of a medical procedure. Is that like "just because we don't like the idea" or something?

The human legal right to life goes back decades in US and international law.

[Coughdrop addict]

We can assume that next the right will try to find out the identities of any women who has ever had an abortion so they can be executed. If not, then they clearly do not really consider abortion murder and all opposition to abortion is solely about their need to wield power over women.

This is a Supreme Court that would overturn Brown v. Board of Education.

Since conservatism is based on the idea that certain people are inherently inferior and shouldn't have rights, that is certain. But they won't stop there:

-A national abortion ban, no exceptions for ectopic pregnancies, rape, or incest.

-A national gay marriage ban.

-Outlawing of homosexuality in general, along with the creation of a stasi-like group to spy on people and arrest suspected homosexuals.

-Forced "conversion therapy".

-Outlawing of interracial marriages. Like most conservatives, Thomas likely assumes that when he removes the civil rights of others he will somehow be exempt. I'd love to see the look on his face the day he and his wife are arrested under the new national racial purity laws.

-Repealing laws against spousal rape and domestic abuse.

-Repealing the 13th and 19th amendments.

-Removing the voting rights of non-whites.

-The creation of a state church everyone must join (with heavy tithes of course) under penalty of law.

[Sir Adrian]

Tell me then what else one would appeal to to demonstrate 'we the people' have a stake in a woman's decision to have an abortion. A stake so high we are prepared to deprive them of a medical procedure. Is that like "just because we don't like the idea" or something?

The right to life is a fundamental human right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights art 3 , the European Convention on Human rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and it is enshrined in the US Declaration of Independence. The right to allow or ban abortions stems from the same place that gives a state the right to have the death penalty or not.*

*Do not think that i am defending the death penalty. I am not. Personally I think it is a barbaric practice of an inferior and thankfully declining culture. Just like non life-threatening abortions.

[PointOfViewGun]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Emphasis mine.

[Muizer]

The right to life is a fundamental human right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights art 3 , the European Convention on Human rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and it is enshrined in the US Declaration of Independence

But only if one invokes religion does it make sense to define personhood biologically. Otherwise the foundation of rights is a social contract, and how can something that isn't born be a participant in a social contract?

[Laser101]

Since conservatism is based on the idea that certain people are inherently inferior and shouldn't have rights, that is certain. But they won't stop there:

That's not what conservatism means by any definition.

-A national abortion ban, no exceptions for ectopic pregnancies, rape, or incest.

-A national gay marriage ban.

-Outlawing of homosexuality in general, along with the creation of a stasi-like group to spy on people and arrest suspected homosexuals.

-Forced "conversion therapy".

-Outlawing of interracial marriages. Like most conservatives, Thomas likely assumes that when he removes the civil rights of others he will somehow be exempt. I'd love to see the look on his face the day he and his wife are arrested under the new national racial purity laws.

-Repealing laws against spousal rape and domestic abuse.

-Repealing the 13th and 19th amendments.

-Removing the voting rights of non-whites.

-The creation of a state church everyone must join (with heavy tithes of course) under penalty of law.

I'd say this is a strawman argument, but frankly that seems like a gross understatement. Is any of this even remotely considered anywhere in the US?

Rightly or wrongly, the only effect this decision has is to state that abortion is not a constitutional right. It does not stipulate whether or not it is legal, which is a legislative issue rather than a judicial one.

[Roma_Victrix]

But only if one invokes religion does it make sense to define personhood biologically. Otherwise the foundation of rights is a social contract, and how can something that isn't born be a participant in a social contract?

Precisely. If a fetus was treated as an actual person, fathers would be forced to pay childcare support from day one of conception and women would be able to do things like take out two life insurance policies, etc.

That is not what is going on here, though.

What is going on here is a bunch of Evangelicals whooping and hollering in a maddening circle jerk that the rest of the country should be punished for its naughty sex sins and that the government should snoop around in your bedroom, in your personal space and belongings for evidence that you were pregnant or had a miscarriage.

The fact that Supreme Court Justice Thomas just today hinted that not only gay sex and gay marriage are on the chopping block, but also contraception and birth control, is confirmation of that glib fascist goal of Evangelicals. They say they hate Sharia Law and want to bomb Iran while unironically turning this country into a theocratic Christian version of Iran. The funny thing is that some states are trying to ban abortion in all cases, even if it endangers the mother's life or will produce a child with severe health defects. Not even the freaking Taliban in Afghanistan enforce that kind of law.

American Evangelicals are literally worse than the Taliban.

Again, should, could, would. Let me know when it actually happens.

They literally overturned a 50-year precedent of Roe v. Wade; what makes you think anything is sacrosanct anymore when it comes to precedent, especially newer rulings? And Alito overturned Roe in part by citing a literal 17th-century English jurist who thought women were witches. That's the sort of reasonable modern thinking behind this decision. Might as well bring witch burnings back too while we're scouring the late medieval and early modern period for advice on how to deal with women's issues in the 21st century.

They're definitely going to go after abortifacient pills next and other forms of birth control. The only Schadenfreude pleasure I might get out of any of this is conservative men in red Republican-dominated states getting all pissy and angry that their usual Trojan condoms are no longer available on the store shelf, if we keep going down this absurd road. A real "leopards ate my face" moment for the people who voted for leopards to eat their face off.

The right to life is a fundamental human right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights art 3 , the European Convention on Human rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and it is enshrined in the US Declaration of Independence. The right to allow or ban abortions stems from the same place that gives a state the right to have the death penalty or not.*

*Do not think that i am defending the death penalty. I am not. Personally I think it is a barbaric practice of an inferior and thankfully declining culture. Just like non life-threatening abortions.

Well that's good to hear, and I imagine it's how most Romanians feel after the last executions were carried out against former dictator Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife, but here in the good ole USA not every state has outlawed capital punishment. In regards to abortion, this happened just recently this year: Murder charges dropped against Texas woman for ‘self-induced abortion’: Lizelle Herrera has been released after being thrown in jail last week, while district attorney says this is ‘not a criminal matter’.

Make no mistake, Evangelicals don't just want to force women to give birth in a country without universal healthcare coverage (that's right, being pregnant and delivering a baby is expensive, unlike in Romania, let alone Canada). American Evangelicals also want to strap said women down onto the lethal injection table and smile as they writhe and die in their restraints. How wholesome!

[Cope]

It's a religiously motivated infringement of individual rights. It's a form of tyranny really.

The ruling is a simple finding of fact that the Constitution does not include a right to abortion. The legal reasoning (if one takes the time to read it) is irreligious in nature. Neither Congress, nor the states, are prohibited from sanctioning abortion.

But only if one invokes religion does it make sense to define personhood biologically.

This is the inverse of reality. The only objective criteria of "personhood" are derived from biological fact. The rest are concocted at the user's subjective convenience.

Otherwise the foundation of rights is a social contract, and how can something that isn't born be a participant in a social contract?

As is plainly evidenced by this debate, in utero humans are effected by "social contracts" and are therefore participants in it.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Precisely. If a fetus was treated as an actual person, fathers would be forced to pay childcare support from day one of conception and women would be able to do things like take out two life insurance policies, etc.

I can only quote myself:

They should. But conservative lawmakers are only punishing the single moms.

Nearly 11 million fathers in the United
States do not live with their children. Twothirds
of these fathers do not pay formal
child support.1 Society is rightly concerned
about the widespread failure of absent
fathers to contribute to their children’s
support. And a variety of recent policy initiatives
are strengthening the enforcement
tools necessary to ensure that “deadbeat
dads” are identified and required to fulfill
their child support responsibilities.
But what exactly is a deadbeat dad?
Most people would agree that he is someone
who shirks his duty for no good reason.
Our data show that 4.5 million nonresident
fathers who do not pay child support have
no apparent financial reason to avoid this
responsibility. None of these fathers are
poor. On the other hand, these data also
show that 2.5 million nonresident fathers
who do not pay child support are poor
themselves.
Obviously, poverty is not an excuse for
shirking parental responsibility. Society
expects poor mothers to work and use
their earnings to support their children.
Certainly it expects poor fathers to do no
less. But society devotes considerably more
resources to helping poor mothers succeed
in the labor market than it does to helping
poor fathers do so. This emphasis on mothers
is appropriate if they face more labor
market barriers than do fathers. Its policy
merits are more dubious if the fathers are
equally ill-prepared to make it in the world
of work.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...gQFVqrtOewmqZ-

I wonder why...

But as long as its only the mothers duty in first line, it should be her choice.

But as the sentence was already leaked i'm not really surprised or upset, its only sad.

[Lord Thesaurian]

And Alito overturned Roe in part by citing a literal 17th-century English jurist who thought women were witches. That's the sort of reasonable modern thinking behind this decision. Might as well bring witch burnings back too while we're scouring the late medieval and early modern period for advice on how to deal with women's issues in the 21st century.

Hale was referenced along with Coke and Blackstone because they were referenced in the Roe v Wade opinion of the court. The reason: “Roe either ignored or misstated this history, and Casey declined to reconsider Roe faulty historical analysis. It is therefore important to set the record straight.”

3. The common law. It is undisputed that at com- mon law, abortion performed before "quickening"- the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy 2°-was not an indictable offense.21 [E. Coke, Institutes III *50; 1 W. Hawkins, Pleas of the
Crown, c. 31, § 16 (4th ed. 1762); 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *129-130; M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown 433 (1st Amer. ed. 1847).] The ab-sence of a common-law crime for pre-quickening abor- tion appears to have developed from a confluence of earlier philosophical, theological, and civil and canon law concepts of when life begins. These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became "formed" or rec- ognizably human, or in terms of when a "person" came into being, that is, infused with a "soul" or "animated."

We begin with common law, under which abortion was a crime at least after “quickening’—i.c., the first folt movement of the fetus in the womb, which usually occurs between the 16th and 18th weekof pregnancy. The “eminent common-law authorities (Blackstone, Coke, Hale, and the like),” Kahler v. “eminent common-law authorities (Blackstone, Coke, Hale, and the like),” Kahler v. Kansas, 589 U.S. __, —_ (2020) (slip op., at 7), all describe abortion after quick- ning as criminal.

That the common law did not condone even pre-quicken- ing abortions is confirmed by what one might call a proto- felony-murder rule. Hale and Blackstone explained a way in which apre-quickening abortion could rise to the level of a homicide. Hale wrote that if a physician gave a woman “with child”a “potion” to cause an abortion, and the woman died, it was “murder” because the potion was given “unla- fully to destroy her child within her.” 1 Hale 129-130 (em- phasis added). and Blackstone explained a way in which apre-quickening abortion could rise to the level of a homicide. Hale wrote that if a physician gave a woman “with child”a “potion” to cause an abortion, and the woman died, it was “murder” because the potion was given “unla- fully to destroy her child within her.” 1 Hale 129-130 (em- phasis added). As Blackstone explained, to be “murder” a killing had to bo done with “malice aforethough, either ex- press or implied.” 4 Blackstone 198, 199. In tho caseofan abortionist, Blackstone wrote, “the law will imply [malice]” for the same reason that it would implymalice if a person who intended to kill one person accidentally killed a differ- ent person.

In sum, although common law authorities differed on the severityofpunishment for abortions committed at different points in pregnancy, none endorsed the practice. Moreover, we are aware of no common law case or authority, and the parties have not pointedto any, that remotely suggests a positive right to procure an abortion at any stage of preg- nancy.

Using a deliberately misconstrued reference to slander the Court during an internet rant is bad enough, but the worst part is it’s what passes for journalism in a media environment dominated by the liberal establishment.