Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

[Bande Nere]

That kind of bigotry is pretty horrifying and also inaccurate, but it’s telling that we’ve already reached the “you can’t have opinions on things you don’t personally experience” hill to die on.
Blinding levels of projection here.

How is that inaccurate or bigoted? And that wasn't my complete statement. Please explain.

Please quote where I stated

"you can’t have opinions on things you don’t personally experience"

Cause I'm here expressing my opinion and I'm pretty sure I can't become pregnant. Sharing an opinion doesn't mean I have the right to force life choices on other people.

No projection. Just objective reality. Or should I address how quickly some conservatives officials changed opinion about gay rights the second they realized their progeny was gay? Or the number of pro-life conservative officials caught paying/forcing their lovers to abort?


@Cope while there are exceptions if the life of the mother is in danger, rape and incest don't seem to be a big issue for a lot of lawmakers. My State for example:

An Ohio state law passed in April 2019 will make abortion illegal after the fetus's heartbeat can be detected, usually between five or six weeks into the pregnancy. No exceptions for cases of rape or incest are made in the law, which is slated to go into effect in July.^[21]

Another thing that makes me wonder about "pro-lifers" is why they have no interest in actually helping the prospective mother to receive decent care and help if she actually WANTS to give birth.

According to a 2017 report from the Center for Reproductive Rights and Ibis Reproductive Health, states that tried to pass additional constraints on a woman's ability to access legal abortions had fewer policies supporting women's health, maternal health and children's health. These states also tended to resist expanding Medicaid, family leave, medical leave, and sex education in public schools.^[18] According to Megan Donovan, a senior policy manager at the Guttmacher Institute, states with legislation that protects a woman's right to access abortion services have the lowest rates of infant mortality in the United States.^[18] In 2017, Georgia, Ohio, Missouri, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi had among the highest rates of infant mortality in the United States.^[18] In 2017, Ohio had an infant mortality rate of 7.2 deaths per 1,000 live births.^[18]

[conon394]

None of those are actually constitutional rights, they're based on legal artifice. What should happen is that those supreme court decisions should be repealed while the democrat et al lawmakers busy themselves drawing up amendments and laws to enshrine those things in the constitution or otherwise provide a solid legal base. Preferably before the mid-term elections.

I would disagree. First lets be clear if we mean the constitution and the first 10 amendments we should not fail to recall it was written for white male property owners with particular respect to those who owned people...

But the 14th amendment was added. And constructing a right of privacy out of it is no more artifice than the the conservatives basically deciding the well regulated militia of the second amendment is to be ignored. I guess all that orginalism and intent stuff goes out the window when you want to ignore a passage of the document.

[Infidel144]

But the 14th amendment was added.

Just what Sir Adrian suggested:
"democrat et al lawmakers busy themselves drawing up amendments and laws."

And constructing a right of privacy out of it is no more artifice than the the conservatives basically deciding the well regulated militia of the second amendment is to be ignored. I guess all that orginalism and intent stuff goes out the window when you want to ignore a passage of the document.

"conservatives" don't ignore the "well regulated militia" part of the Second.

[conon394]

"conservatives" don't ignore the "well regulated militia" part of the Second.

They do all the time, particularly up holding concealed carry laws and stopping regulation.

[Sir Adrian]

I would disagree. First lets be clear if we mean the constitution and the first 10 amendments we should not fail to recall it was written for white male property owners with particular respect to those who owned people...

But the 14th amendment was added. And constructing a right of privacy out of it is no more artifice than the the conservatives basically deciding the well regulated militia of the second amendment is to be ignored. I guess all that orginalism and intent stuff goes out the window when you want to ignore a passage of the document.

Where in the 14th amendment does it say anything about abortions and all that other stuff. Nowhere. If you have to extrapolate or explain it's a legal artifice. An amendment that covers this specifically would be a much better choice than having to dance around with privacy and try to build rope bridge from privacy to abortion through intimacy.

And constructing a right of privacy out of it is no more artifice than the the conservatives basically deciding the well regulated militia of the second amendment is to be ignored. I guess all that orginalism and intent stuff goes out the window when you want to ignore a passage of the document.

This is textbook whataboutism. Just because America's gun laws are objectively retarded does not mean everything else that's wrong gets a free pass. Not to mention that complaining about the 2nd amendment being creatively interpreted while defending even worse mental gymnastics for the 14th is very hypocritical.

[Lord Thesaurian]

No projection. Just objective reality. Or should I address how quickly some conservatives officials changed opinion about gay rights the second they realized their progeny was gay? Or the number of pro-life conservative officials caught paying/forcing their lovers to abort?

All I’ve seen is accusing conservatives of bad faith and hypocrisy based on speculation while suggesting poll respondents and people in this thread are inherently biased unless they are women (which again is pretty bigoted since we aren’t biologists and can’t know what a “woman” is or is not and men can be birthing people too). It has little relevance to the abortion debate or Roe v Wade. If every single conservative in this country had an abortion or paid for one while opposing it, that wouldn’t mean abortion on demand should therefore be legal or opposition to it is fake or SCOTUS should uphold Roe or whatever you’re angling at.

[Bande Nere]

All I’ve seen is accusing conservatives of bad faith and hypocrisy 1)based on speculation while 2)suggesting poll respondents and people in this thread are inherently biased unless they are women 3)(which again is pretty bigoted since we aren’t biologists and can’t know what a “woman” is or is not and men can be birthing people too). It has little relevance to the abortion debate or Roe v Wade. 4)If every single conservative in this country had an abortion or paid for one while opposing it, that wouldn’t mean abortion on demand should therefore be legal or 5)opposition to it is fake or 6)SCOTUS should uphold Roe or whatever you’re angling at.

1) We both know my observations about Conservative double standards are not based on speculation, but if you want to press the issue I wll also add accusing Dems of committing voting fraud and then getting caught committing voting fraud. And I can google the previously mentioned as well...

2) No I did not. I was just observing that men are not directly affected by such laws, unlike women. That's a fact rather than an opinion.

3) You will really have to elaborate on that one for me. And I'm not the one who made a huge fuss about this aspect of what I wrote, so I'd say you're the one trying to derail the conversation here rather than me.

4) If everyone's doing it then why should it be illegal? Sounds quite linear to me.

5) never said it was fake. Rather most respondents will flaunt their moral stance and then privately do the opposite, if and when reality hits them in the face. But that's only human after all.

6) Is lying to Congress a crime? Or at least a vey unethical thing for a prospective SCOTUS to do?

[Lord Thesaurian]

1) We both know my observations about Conservative double standards are not based on speculation

No we don’t. In any case, if this were an issue of moral hypocrisy, the public discourse wouldn’t be about saving America from Republican Sharia based on a single SCOTUS decision, or that time John Republican got his gf an abortion at band camp. It’d be about how the Democrats have controlled both Congress and the White House five times since 1973 (including now) and evidently never passed the kinds of federal abortion protections they say are at risk if Roe is overturned. If people saying one thing and doing another is what you care about on this issue, look no further. The idea conservatives have any kind of obligation to support abortion on demand or help Democrats legislate abortion from the courts is delusional.

2) No I did not. I was just observing that men are not directly affected by such laws, unlike women

Which is false.

3) You will really have to elaborate on that one for me. And I'm not the one who made a huge fuss about this aspect of what I wrote, so I'd say you're the one trying to deraithe conversation here rather than me.

See above.

4) If everyone's doing it then why should it be illegal? Sounds quite linear to me.

Abortion is legal in the US and overturning Roe wouldn’t make it illegal in the US, so I’m not sure what this comment has to do with anything even if it were true that “everyone is doing abortion.”

5) never said it was fake. Father most respondents will flaunt their moral stance and then privately do the opposite, if and when reality hits them in the face. But that's only human after all.

Fake = not genuine, or fraudulent. You’ve repeated here again the suggestion that conservative or male polling respondents’ views on abortion are biased, disingenuous or hypocritical in an effort to discredit them, based on speculative assumptions.

6) Is lying to Congress a crime? Or at least a vey unethical thing for a prospective SCOTUS to do?

Another rhetorical question that probably isn’t going anywhere.

[Roma_Victrix]

Absolute stupidity and theocratic madness, the sort of ruling rapists everywhere undoubtedly love. If the 50-year-old precedent of Roe v. Wade decision defended with the 14th Amendment is not settled law of the land, then what is? Is the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling on racial segregation in schooling being unconstitutional also on the chopping block? Who knows? This is terrifying uncharted territory and the worst Pandora's box I can imagine being opened. It might also be the one thing to save the Democrats in the midterms given the flagging economy and how this one issue will supercharge liberals, progressives, social democrats, and maybe even convince a communist or two to vote for once. Voting alone isn't going to solve this, though.

[Cyclops]

US politics is weird. Certainly legislating form the bench is dangerous, as it makes abortion rollback legally achievable and gives a "iunjust" narratuve weapon to the opponents of abortion.

My opinion on the potential decision is irrelevant, as I'm not a Yank, but it seems to be following correct procedure and I'd hate to see a legal decision politicked. FWIW Bernie seems to have the take that makes the most sense:

Sorry I linked to a meme site I don't how to link tweets-signed Hans Moleman

Rotten politicians letting events take control of policymaking is cowardly. You wouldn't need "activist judges" if your representatives represented and led the people.

I'm still sore my Pence/Sanders or Sanders/Pence ticket didn't get up

[Prodromos]

If the 50-year-old precedent of Roe v. Wade decision defended with the 14th Amendment is not settled law of the land, then what is? Is the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling on racial segregation in schooling being unconstitutional also on the chopping block? Who knows? This is terrifying uncharted territory and the worst Pandora's box I can imagine being opened.

Plessy v. Ferguson was a 58-year-old precedent when it was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal".[2][3] The decision legitimized the many state laws re-establishing racial segregation that had been passed in the American South after the end of the Reconstruction Era (1865–1877).

But a series of the Court's later decisions, beginning with the 1954 decision Brown v. Board of Education—which held that the "separate but equal" doctrine is unconstitutional in the context of public schools and educational facilities—have severely weakened Plessy to the point that it is considered to have been de facto overruled.[6]

[Bande Nere]

No we don’t. In any case, if this were an issue of moral hypocrisy, the public discourse wouldn’t be about saving America from Republican Sharia based on a single SCOTUS decision, or that time John Republican got his gf an abortion at band camp. It’d be about how the Democrats have controlled both Congress and the White House five times since 1973 (including now) and evidently never passed the kinds of federal abortion protections they say are at risk if Roe is overturned. If people saying one thing and doing another is what you care about on this issue, look no further. The idea conservatives have any kind of obligation to support abortion on demand or help Democrats legislate abortion from the courts is delusional. 1)[whatever this mess means]
2)Which is false.
See above.
3)Abortion is legal in the US and overturning Roe wouldn’t make it illegal in the US, so I’m not sure what this comment has to do with anything even if it were true that “everyone is doing abortion.”
4)Fake = not genuine, or fraudulent. You’ve repeated here again the suggestion that conservative or male polling respondents’ views on abortion are biased, disingenuous or hypocritical in an effort to discredit them, based on speculative assumptions.
5)Another rhetorical question that probably isn’t going anywhere.

1) Dems have a troubling history of trying to appease the GOP for the sake of the Republic, even when the GOP has proved time and time again they couldn't care less about democracy and the Rule of Law. What the hell, they don't even really care about "conservative values". Here are a few examples to prove my previous statements...

2) Again, I'm asking you to elaborate on something and you just yell "false" and run away as if that should somehow prove your point.

3) It would make it illegal in many states. Either by trigger laws or by simply reverting to the state law that was put aside when Roe Vs. Wade became the law of the land. So that's clearly false.

4) That's funny coming from the guy who literally modified my quote. Also I did not specify who I meant in my observation, in fact I wrote

most respondents will flaunt their moral stance and then privately do the opposite, if and when reality hits them in the face. But that's only human after all.

so unless you believe humans are exclusively conservative or male , I'm not the one making speculative assumptions here...

5) You mean the fact the every single Trump SCOTUS has committed a federal crime by lying to Congress about Roe Vs. Wade is irrelevant to a discussion about SCOTUS overturning Roe Vs. Wade? Are you Lindsey Graham perchance?


Your attempts at sophism and escapism are not working. And you don't seem to understand the rather great difference between fathering and birthing a child.

[Coughdrop addict]

Is the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling on racial segregation in schooling being unconstitutional also on the chopping block?

Undoubtedly. But first things first, the Republican party will now retool it's massive anti-choice policy machine to work towards stripping women of the right to vote and hold office. Once that is done they will go after the rights of women to testify in court, divorce, work, own property, and go to school. The eventual goal is reducing women to being chattel and objects of trade.

Really, the only thing Republican voters don't like about the Taliban and ISIS is that they're Muslims.

It might also be the one thing to save the Democrats in the midterms given the flagging economy and how this one issue will supercharge liberals, progressives, social democrats, and maybe even convince a communist or two to vote for once.

The Republicans no longer need to win the majority of votes. With the new laws they can simply declare fraud in the event of a Democratic win, appoint their own voting boards to examine all ballots for "fraud" (read: throwing out all Democratic votes), and award themselves the win.

I fully expect a full Republican sweep in November, Trump or DeSantis being awarded all of the electoral votes in 2024, and no further elections afterwards.

[Cope]

Problem is it nature of the opinion. Its just a narrow attack on Roe and abortion but a lot other decisions that are popular as well based on the right to privacy /14th amendment. Birth control, Plan B, Interracial and gay marriage. Not having sodomy laws If the Text stands penned it threatens to overturn a lot over rights people are comfortable with.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Sir Adrian]

Absolute stupidity and theocratic madness, the sort of ruling rapists everywhere undoubtedly love. If the 50-year-old precedent of Roe v. Wade decision defended with the 14th Amendment is not settled law of the land, then what is? Is the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling on racial segregation in schooling being unconstitutional also on the chopping block? Who knows? This is terrifying uncharted territory and the worst Pandora's box I can imagine being opened. It might also be the one thing to save the Democrats in the midterms given the flagging economy and how this one issue will supercharge liberals, progressives, social democrats, and maybe even convince a communist or two to vote for once. Voting alone isn't going to solve this, though.

I'm not sure how you can compare willing abortions - something you do to someone else - with racial segregation - something that's done to you.

[conon394]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yes that was quite funny. And entirely useless. The basic line attack on a right to privacy remains. And while maybe that might or might not restrain lower courts (the kind of language in Bush v Gore did not)

https://www.propublica.org/article/w...-still-matters

It certainly is no restraint on the SCOTUS in any way. Nor the statement creating either/or in the construction or deeply held traditions. What does that latter even mean? I mean the like not equality of Women, Blacks, Asians, First nations is a deeply held tradition of the USA. By that logic we should Lochner and slaver or at least making women essential minors again those are older longer traditions.

----------

This is textbook whataboutism. Just because America's gun laws are objectively retarded does not mean everything else that's wrong gets a free pass. Not to mention that complaining about the 2nd amendment being creatively interpreted while defending even worse mental gymnastics for the 14th is very hypocritical.

I rather disagree. The same justices complaining about assumed rights out of the 14th , clearly just close their eyes to the plain text and meaning of the 2nd amendment. Which assumption is more mental gymnastics?

Also assumed rights out of the 14th are a bit older than Roe... They were the basis for Lochner over a century ago.

[Infidel144]

The same justices complaining about assumed rights out of the 14th , clearly just close their eyes to the plain text and meaning of the 2nd amendment. Which assumption is more mental gymnastics?

Your assumptions, as you plainly need to invent things that are not in the Second Amendment:

They do all the time, particularly up holding concealed carry laws and stopping regulation.

There is nothing in the Second about either of those.

[Lord Thesaurian]

1) Dems have a troubling history of trying to appease the GOP for the sake of the Republic, even when the GOP has proved time and time again they couldn't care less about democracy and the Rule of Law. What the hell, they don't even really care about "conservative values". Here are a few examples to prove my previous statements...

Another evasion. If it’s true that Democrats haven’t acted to protect abortion rights because they place more value on appeasing conservatives, that would mean Democrats are the ones who “couldn’t care less” about the values they claim to espouse, which does nothing for whatever your argument is.

2) Again, I'm asking you to elaborate on something and you just yell "false" and run away as if that should somehow prove your point.

4) That's funny coming from the guy who literally modified my quote. Also I did not specify who I meant in my observation, in fact I wrote so unless you believe humans are exclusively conservative or male , I'm not the one making speculative assumptions here...

Your attempts at sophism and escapism are not working. And you don't seem to understand the rather great difference between fathering and birthing a child.

Since you’ve decided to play the “I never said that” game, I guess we can conclude you’ve abandoned your initial position.

3) It would make it illegal in many states. Either by trigger laws or by simply reverting to the state law that was put aside when Roe Vs. Wade became the law of the land. So that's clearly false.

You’ve yet to substantiate this claim when you discussed it with Cope. If it’s true that any state is poised to completely ban abortion in all cases, that would have zero impact on the legality of abortion in states where abortion on demand is legal by state law. So no, you’re wrong.

5) You mean the fact the every single Trump SCOTUS has committed a federal crime by lying to Congress about Roe Vs. Wade is irrelevant to a discussion about SCOTUS overturning Roe Vs. Wade? Are you Lindsey Graham perchance?

Lolwut

[Bande Nere]

Another evasion. If it’s true that Democrats haven’t acted to protect abortion rights because they place more value on appeasing conservatives, 1)that would mean Democrats are the ones who “couldn’t care less” about the values they claim to espouse, which does nothing for whatever your argument is.

2)Since you’ve decided to play the “I never said that” game, I guess we can conclude you’ve abandoned your initial position.

You’ve yet to substantiate this claim when you discussed it with Cope. 3)If it’s true that any state is poised to completely ban abortion in all cases, that would have zero impact on the legality of abortion in states where abortion on demand is legal by state law. So no, you’re wrong.

4)Lolwut

1) Or maybe they expected the GOP would refrain from appeasing the taliban caucus.

2) I'm still waiting for you to quote me saying anything of what you have falsely accused me of.

3) Even before Roe Vs. Wade there were states that legalized abortion, so its clear repealing it would not mean it becomes illegal in the entirety of the US, while its quite obvious it would go back to be illegal in many states. Which has always been my point, so I'm right. Not sure how you thought this little exercise at sophistry of yours was going to work. I see what you did there with the "completely ban abortion in all cases", so considering a number of these state laws only accept it for extreme cases in which the mother's health is in danger, are we to assume rape and incest are NOT reasonable requirements for an abortion? They are recreational abortions too?

4) That must have been what those Trump appointees thought when asked about their position on Roe Vs. Wade, in Congress. Unfortunately it would appear lying to Congress is a federal crime.

[Roma_Victrix]

I'm not sure how you can compare willing abortions - something you do to someone else - with racial segregation - something that's done to you.

What? A woman having an abortion is doing something to herself, i.e. her womb. Unless you're arguing a zygote is a person. Both Roe and Brown are rooted in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. You're a Romanian, so I don't expect you to understand that, but now you know.

This potential ruling on 1973's Roe v. Wade will undoubtedly lead to similar shenanigans in other Supreme Court case precedents, including on contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965), interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia, 1967), sodomy and homosexual intercourse (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003), and homosexual marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). Both Obergefell and Loving are also rooted in the 14th Amendment. Do you see now why the right-wing is so obsessed with attacking and tearing down Roe first and foremost? Aside from generally despising poor and middle class women who don't belong to their country club and can't afford to travel to the next state to have an abortion.