-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/10965...e-abortion-ban
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544
Make abortions illegal will put lots of women in jail. So some 12 year old raped by her father going to prison for surviving a wire coat hanger abortion feels like justice to some of you. Most women who have abortions already have one kid, so if your wife & mother of three has a miscarriage, a prison term of 6 years seems fair to you. Cause 20 percent of pregnant women have miscarriages but will die from infection since they will be too scared to go to a doctor & get a DnC or antibiotics. Since it will be a felony for Doctors & nurses not to report it.
Let's not forget how these same people want to make birth control illegal too.
There are 6 million kids that live under the poverty line. There are over 400,000 kids in foster care due to abuse & rape by their parents. So those against abortion want to increase the violence against women & children and those who survive go to jail.
And since people with criminal histories lose their right to vote in most States, this will be the fastest way to remove women's right to vote over the next 50 years. So we get no representation in the U.S. gov at all.
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
It wasn't until fairly recently that religious conservatives began advocating that unborn fetuses should have more rights than the women carrying them.
Reminds me of this meme about the stimulus bill:
https://i.imgur.com/Vp98upM.png
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
WHAT ????
That is a unique reading of Brown vs. Board that I have NEVER heard from anyone else. Brown specifically said
( and YOU quoted ) : " in the field of public education the doctrine of separate but equal has no place ". It was followed by a line of cases that invalidated segregation in all sorts of places and contexts. Prior to Brown, the Court went after places like law schools that did not admit blacks when the state in question ( Missouri ) did not have a law school for blacks. They enforced equality when it was shown that facilities were NOT equal. Brown said for the first time since 1896 that the whole doctrine was invalid. Not just that educational facilities were glaringly unequal.
Don't you think that maybe you never heard of it because you listen to fascist echo chambers?
Quote:
We conclude that in the field of public education the
doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate
educational facilities are inherently unequal."' Therefore,
we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated
for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason
of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal
protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment. rhis disposition makes unnecessary any
discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.12
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-service...srep347483.pdf
It was not overturned, it used the out the original ruling gave.
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
There is no right of the unborn potential life. There were never any rights for fetuses written into the Constitution. The writers of the Constitution did not consider a fetus to be a person. Abortions were legal in every one of the original states. The only reason why abortions were made illegal was because at the time, abortions were not safe. It wasn't until fairly recently that religious conservatives began advocating that unborn fetuses should have more rights than the women carrying them.
Individual rights should not be decided by ELECTED representatives. It should be decided by the individuals themselves. State legislatures should not have control over women's bodies. If you actually READ the Roe vs. Wade decision, it clearly documents how unborn fetuses were never given personhood. Even today, there is practically unanimous agreement that an unborn fetus is not legally considered a person. A pregnant woman cannot declare an unborn fetus as a dependent on her tax forms. When the census is taken, unborn fetuses are not considered a person. It is only in the case of abortion, where religious conservatives believe unborn fetuses should have full legal rights. The entire basis of this belief is not about concern for the unborn fetus. It's their belief that their god does not approve of abortions. Many of these same people have little regard for life inside or outside the womb in every other situation. They consistently oppose funding for nutrition, healthcare and housing for poor pregnant women and poor mothers. Mississippi, the state that is currently going to court to overturn 'Roe vs. Wade' has the highest infant mortality rate in the country.
That's right. Eagle, please do not confuse explanation for advocacy. Neither fetuses nor abortion are mentioned in the Constitution. Btw there are plenty of atheists and agnostics who are Pro-Life and lots of Catholics who are Pro-Choice. You lay out the Pro-Choice argument rather well. I did not say that I supported repealing or overturning Roe.
There are people who disagree with you and are Pro-Life. If Roe is overturned and the issue goes back to our 50 states then each legislature will be lobbied by people on both sides of the issue. If the polls are correct and the overwhelming majority of Americans see abortion as a nuanced issue and that Roe should be left alone or at least maintained in part then there will be political brawls over the issue. One side will win and the other will lose. And the losers can regroup and keep trying to have their view prevail. It's called democracy.
I was thinking about a possible strategy if let's say Alabama banned all abortions. Which I think will happen if Roe is overturned. I think an unwed mother ought to be able to sue and make an equal protection argument i.e. men don't get pregnant so women who do and can't do anything about it are entitled to pre-natal care and support for their unwanted child. I AGREE with you that the same people who want to tell women they must bear unwanted children are unwilling to give them support for those children. Worse yet is when they do not want to permit rape and incest victims to have the option of aborting the fetus forced on them. At the risk of being crude and insensitive to the point of stereotyping there are already too many examples of where the family tree did not fork. I think Rick Santorum was disgustingly callous and cruel when he told rape victims who got pregnant to " make the best of it ". Probably the greatest public service ever performed by the people of Pennsylvania was when they threw him out of the Senate . By a large margin. I also find it disgusting that the same people who care so much about unborn children usually support the death penalty and the possibility of executing an innocent person doesn't seem to bother them very much.
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sam38g
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/10965...e-abortion-ban
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544
Make abortions illegal will put lots of women in jail. So some 12 year old raped by her father going to prison for surviving a wire coat hanger abortion feels like justice to some of you. Most women who have abortions already have one kid, so if your wife & mother of three has a miscarriage, a prison term of 6 years seems fair to you. Cause 20 percent of pregnant women have miscarriages but will die from infection since they will be too scared to go to a doctor & get a DnC or antibiotics. Since it will be a felony for Doctors & nurses not to report it.
Let's not forget how these same people want to make birth control illegal too.
There are 6 million kids that live under the poverty line. There are over 400,000 kids in foster care due to abuse & rape by their parents. So those against abortion want to increase the violence against women & children and those who survive go to jail.
And since people with criminal histories lose their right to vote in most States, this will be the fastest way to remove women's right to vote over the next 50 years. So we get no representation in the U.S. gov at all.
Wrong. Griswold v. Connecticut will still be good law. Plus the Alito draft specifically and clearly said the decision does NOT affect any other rights.
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DeathAndTaxes
I'm sorry but you lost me. What is your point ? Every constitutional scholar that I have read says that Brown overruled Plessy. Name one case AFTER Brown that upheld Plessy or even cited it with approval.
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Wrong. Griswold v. Connecticut will still be good law. Plus the Alito draft specifically and clearly said the decision does NOT affect any other rights.
https://felonvoting.procon.org/state-felon-voting-laws/
I still to this day do not understand why you are on a board with women when you clearly do not like us.
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sam38g
Oh dear. You have no idea what Griswold says do you ? Griswold v. Connecticut said that the RIGHT To Privacy protected access to birth control and that states do not have the power to ban sale or prescription of same.
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
I'm sorry but you lost me. What is your point ? Every constitutional scholar that I have read says that Brown overruled Plessy. Name one case AFTER Brown that upheld Plessy or even cited it with approval.
Plessy had an out, they had to be equal, Brown said it can never be equal ever, hence Plessy was never overturned.
If this current court ruled that segragation CAN be equal THEN it is overturning Brown.
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DeathAndTaxes
Plessy had an out, they had to be equal, Brown said it can never be equal ever, hence Plessy was never overturned.
If this current court ruled that segragation CAN be equal THEN it is overturning Brown.
In the abstract I suppose you have a point. One problem was that things were NEVER equal. They were always separate and UNEQUAL. However you quoted the very Plessy doctrine that Brown specifically overruled. Brown overruled Plessy saying the doctrine of "separate but equal" had no place in public education. They said that segregated schools by their very nature were inherently UNEQUAL because of its effects on black children. If you really believe what you are posting then please point to a single case AFTER Brown vs. Bd of Ed upholding "separate but equal ".
I'm sorry but I can't believe I am even discussing this. From where are you getting these whacked out ideas such as that Plessy was not overturned when it clearly was ? Who told you that ? What did you read that said that ? Written by whom ?
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
In the abstract I suppose you have a point. One problem was that things were NEVER equal. They were always separate and UNEQUAL. However you quoted the very Plessy doctrine that Brown specifically overruled. Brown overruled Plessy saying the doctrine of "separate but equal" had no place in public education. They said that segregated schools by their very nature were inherently UNEQUAL because of its effects on black children. If you really believe what you are posting then please point to a single case AFTER Brown vs. Bd of Ed upholding "separate but equal ".
I'm sorry but I can't believe I am even discussing this. From where are you getting these whacked out ideas such as that Plessy was not overturned when it clearly was ? Who told you that ? What did you read that said that ? Written by whom ?
My source is the actual majority opinion on the ruling, the one I posted a link to.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-service...srep347483.pdf
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
QED
I don't believe you ever bothered to read it, and just repated what other people said?
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
That's right. Eagle, please do not confuse explanation for advocacy. Neither fetuses nor abortion are mentioned in the Constitution. Btw there are plenty of atheists and agnostics who are Pro-Life and lots of Catholics who are Pro-Choice. You lay out the Pro-Choice argument rather well. I did not say that I supported repealing or overturning Roe.
It wasn't necessary to mention fetuses or abortion in the Constitution. It was already a given that the fetus was not a person. Abortions were legal in every state at the time the Constitution was written.
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
If the leaker is outed they will most likely be fired. Optics alone will make that happen. Disbarred? Possibly, however, since no law was broken by the leaker, arresting them would be difficult. This orchestrated outrage to the leak is way more suspicious to me then protesters mobilizing for something they were prepared for.
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
They plan to track women's periods & profit off turning anyone who has an abortion or miscarriage & turn them into the police.
https://twitter.com/nandoodles/statu...68z3HCo_j45RLQ This is a full scale war on women, to put as many as they can in prison.
https://www.route-fifty.com/health-h...110119/160995/
By leaving it up to each State on whether it will be legal or not, is denying women Equal Rights in all States. Especially when our monthly cycle is being tracked & our phone datas used to convict women of having abortion in any State she travels too. So saying just let it be a State law rather than a Federal law & all will be fine is one huge lie.
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kamiliam
If the leaker is outed they will most likely be fired. Optics alone will make that happen. Disbarred? Possibly, however, since no law was broken by the leaker, arresting them would be difficult. This orchestrated outrage to the leak is way more suspicious to me then protesters mobilizing for something they were prepared for.
Right-wing nutjob and disgusting, despicable human being, Ted Cruz, wants the leaker prosecuted and thrown in jail.
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...e-17143312.php
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
For what law?!? They never seem to get to that part.
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rickdugan
To be clear, I'm not here to argue the pros and cons of abortion, just to discuss the Court's thinking as I understand it.
Tbh the precedent has always had very shaky legs from a Constitutional standpoint. In order to make it work, the Court first had to infer a right to privacy that never existed in the Constitution and then engage in creative mental gymnastics to shoehorn abortion in as a privacy issue. At the time it was a very liberal court with Justices prone to rather broad interpretations, this probably being one of their broadest. It was probably inevitable that the pendulum would swing and that, eventually, the precedent would be overturned once the Court had more Constitutional texualists in its ranks.
But as far as fascism, let's tone it down. Fascists take power, they don't give it away to others (in this case the states). Like it or not, this court is doing here what it has done in several other cases, which is to keep the federal government in check. It just so happens that many aren't happy with this particular limit on federal authority.
And with that I am going to unsubscribe. I came on here just to discuss the process and this is everything I have on that topic. I understand that there are going to be a lot of strong feelings on the potential impacts of this so I will get out of the way and wish all well.
I doubt that you even read the 'Roe vs. Wade' decision. This has nothing to do with keeping the federal government in check. This decision is overturning a previous decision by the Supreme Court, not ruling that a federal law is unconstitutional. The federal government can pass a law to make abortions legal or illegal in every state. Before this most recent decision, it was not up to either federal or state government to decide whether or not a woman could get an abortion, it was the decision of the woman. This recent decision now takes the power away from the woman, and turns it over to state governments. Once this decision goes into effect, states will have the power to take control over the bodies of all pregnant women in those states, should those states pass laws banning abortions.
Yes, the Republican Party has become fascist. They bear all of the characteristics of fascism. Religion mixed with government, Abortion bans, racism and white supremacy, disregard for democracy, a supreme leader with absolution power, and prohibiting freedom of speech or criticism of government, are all characteristics of fascist regimes. Republicans are trying to ban all criticism of white people in schools under the guise of opposing CRT. Florida's Republican governor is punishing Disney for criticizing a bill recently passed. Republicans overwhelmingly refuse to accept the results of the 2020 election. The majority of Republicans will not accept anyone, other than a Republican, as the legitimate President of the United States.
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
I doubt that you even read the 'Roe vs. Wade' decision. This has nothing to do with keeping the federal government in check. This decision is overturning a previous decision by the Supreme Court, not ruling that a federal law is unconstitutional. The federal government can pass a law to make abortions legal or illegal in every state. Before this most recent decision, it was not up to either federal or state government to decide whether or not a woman could get an abortion, it was the decision of the woman. This recent decision now takes the power away from the woman, and turns it over to state governments. Once this decision goes into effect, states will have the power to take control over the bodies of all pregnant women in those states, should those states pass laws banning abortions.
Yes, the Republican Party has become fascist. They bear all of the characteristics of fascism. Religion mixed with government, Abortion bans, racism and white supremacy, disregard for democracy, a supreme leader with absolution power, and prohibiting freedom of speech or criticism of government, are all characteristics of fascist regimes. Republicans are trying to ban all criticism of white people in schools under the guise of opposing CRT. Florida's Republican governor is punishing Disney for criticizing a bill recently passed. Republicans overwhelmingly refuse to accept the results of the 2020 election. The majority of Republicans will not accept anyone, other than a Republican, as the legitimate President of the United States.
Eagle, putting aside the need for a grown man to demonize those who disagree with him by slapping on simplistic labels, the "fascist" label you are applying to the Republican Party couldn't be more off. Obviously you lack even a basic understanding of how would-be dictatorships acquire and then maintain control over its people.
Here's a partial list:
- Fascists don't decentralize power to political subdivisions, the try to centralize it.
- Fascists don't promote free markets, they try to subvert or outright take over markets and industries.
- Fascists don't let people keep more of their own money, they try to take it and make people more dependent on them.
- Fascists don't encourage its citizenry to arm itself, they disarm their populations.
- Fascists don't promote school choice and parental involvement in education, they take it over to control the messaging.
This is the play book used by every dictator who came to power, from Hitler in Germany to Castro in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela (and too many others to list). First make the populace economically dependent upon you, then disarm it so that they can't fight back as you exert more control and, finally, control what the children are taught and believe.
So while I understand your melodramatic response - this is an emotionally charged issue - on the broader scale it's your party that resembles fascists far more than the Republicans. The heavy-handed pandemic responses of Democrat Governors, who were all too eager to grab and exert power much too long with population controls and school closures, should clue everyone in as to how they really feel about their own judgment vs. that of ordinary citizens. The Dems also lie like they breath in order to get elected as many of their true policy goals are unpopular, but they believe that they know better than the people voting for them, so the ends justify the means in their minds.
As far as this particular issue, the Supreme Court's intention is most certainly to revert the matter to the States and limit its own authority in the process. In its view, each state's electorate has the right to decide whether the unborn child has a competing interest that needs to be protected. In the published draft, the Court even acknowledged that some states may choose to broaden abortion rights. This is hardly the act of a body looking to exert control over anything or anybody.
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
It wasn't necessary to mention fetuses or abortion in the Constitution. It was already a given that the fetus was not a person. Abortions were legal in every state at the time the Constitution was written.
Actually abortion was not illegal when the constitution was written. There were no laws banning it or regulating it back then. In 1787 the point of viability for a fetus was what ? 8 months ? Today it is around 6 months give or take. Some say 5 months. Our founders didn't know any of this stuff then. There were very few hospitals then let alone neo-natal ICU's. The science has advanced a long way since. We now know when there is a detectable heartbeat and when the fetus can feel pain. By the time the 14th Amendment was passed abortion was illegal in every state in the country. Since the Constitution is silent about abortion and fetuses the 10th Amendment arguably says that anything concerning same is reserved to the states or the people. That is only a minor corollary argument against the constitutional underpinnings of Roe.
Roe v. Wade was legislating from the bench. But I think we are better off with it than if it is reversed. So do about 80% of Americans. Only 19% want a total ban on abortion. Yeah, well, just wait until one of them (or a loved one) has a pregnancy that is literally killing them or is impregnated by a rapist and see how they feel THEN !
Even under Blackmun's trimester approach in Roe ( confirmed by Casey v. Planned Parenthood ) the state's interest in protecting life becomes paramount in the 3rd Trimester and states MAY ban abortion EXCEPT to save the mother's life in the final 3 months. Many states permit late term abortions up to and even after birth. Personally , unless it is necessary to save the mother's life I consider it to be infanticide. So do the overwhelming majority of Americans. But there are extremists and fanatics on both sides of the issue.
Another problem with reversing Roe is it will entice a few states to try and outlaw various forms of birth control like RU486 ; Plan B and the morning after pill. Alito's DRAFT opinion clearly says that it does NOT affect any other right. That means Griswold is still good law. As it should be. Letting Roe stand avoids a lot of unnecessary mischief making by some state legislatures.
I can hear some of you saying something to the effect : "Eric is being a hypocrite. Trying to have his cake and eat it yada, yada." No. Constitutionally Roe was poorly constructed. Blackmun et. al. could have and should have said that abortion was covered by the right to privacy and that states could not completely ban the procedure. And then left it to the states to legislate accordingly. As they do with many things affecting fundamental rights. Blackmun must have thought that his opinion would be the last word on the issue. Obviously it was anything but. For those who say that legislatures cannot interfere with fundamental rights my response is that they do it all the time. Lots of fundamental rights have limitations placed upon them by both the Federal and state governments that pass constitutional muster. Even now with Roe in full force and effect there are states where it is very difficult if not impossible for a woman to get an abortion within a reasonable distance. Even a medically necessary one. If Roe is reversed it will be even more difficult. Jeff Bezos for instance has promised to pay up to $4000 in travel expenses for any Amazon employee to travel to a state where abortion is available. I sincerely hope it does not come to the point where hundreds of thousands of women need such help. There are too many now who need such assistance and do not get it.
What positive purpose would be served by reversing Roe ? What benefit would be derived from doing so ? Aside from constitutional ecology I can't think of any. As I said, assuming the Court went too far in the Roe decision and legislated instead of interpreted it is clearly too late now. As a PRACTICAL matter (in the real world we all have to live in ) Roe stood for 50 years and like many other decisions people became justifiably reliant on its being "the law of the land". Gorsuch and Kavanagh both said so during their confirmations and in private conversations with Senators Collins and Murkowski. More importantly the Mississippi law in Dobbs can be upheld without reversing Roe. It is the most sensible thing to do. Having stuck its nose into the abortion issue 50 years ago it would be too damaging for the SCOTUS to try and bow out now. Regardless of their motives or constitutional views.
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Actually abortion was not illegal when the constitution was written.
...That's what he typed:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
Abortions were legal in every state at the time the Constitution was written.
You're not helping debunk that "demented boomer" claim.
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kamiliam
For what law?!? They never seem to get to that part.
Actually they have. Title 18 , Section 641 of the U.S. Code makes any unlawful taking of ANYTHING belonging to ANY department or agency a crime. ? The statute says " ANY record or thing ". Any attempt to influence the Court's decision (which this leak clearly was ) constitutes Obstruction of Justice.
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
So do I. Sorry.
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dpacrkk
...That's what he typed:
You're not helping debunk that "demented boomer" claim.
I know that. When I need your help I'll let you know lol. It was not illegal meaning there were no laws against it. The law was SILENT. I was drawing the contrast with 1868 when the 14th Amendment was passed and all ( 34 ? ) states had made abortion illegal.
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
I know that. When I need your help I'll let you know lol.
So you are saying it was "not illegal" and also "not legal..." On a switch (legality) that's binary and mutually exclusive...
You're not helping debunk that "demented boomer" claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
It was not illegal meaning there were no laws against it. The law was SILENT. I was drawing the contrast with 1868 when the 14th Amendment was passed and all ( 34 ? ) states had made abortion illegal.
So it was legal until it was made illegal...
-
Re: SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Actually they have. Title 18 , Section 641 of the U.S. Code makes any unlawful taking of ANYTHING belonging to ANY department or agency a crime. ? The statute says " ANY record or thing ". Any attempt to influence the Court's decision (which this leak clearly was ) constitutes Obstruction of Justice.
it has to have a “value” attached at least it always has. This was a leak to domestic press, this wasn’t a classified document, it doesn’t impact security. It would be a complete overreach compared to those even charged. Chelsea Manning was charged but she was tried in a military court. If you support charging someone for this act, your comments in the free speech thread are even more disconnected from reality then I https://www.wired.com/story/scotus-r...ak-legal-risk/