How Four Supreme Court Justices Could Save Roe v Wade

[lwf]

Neither do democrats as there is no popular vote election of president to be won. Never has been.

It's pretty much a certainly you will lose the House. And the Senate will probably change hands as well.

You are projecting. The truth is that the majority of Americans support restrictions at some level on abortion.

Perhaps you were unaware that the popular vote is still counted every presidential election. It is just not used to elect the president. Republicans used to win both the actual electoral votes, and also the popular vote. Now, when they do win the presidency, they only win the electoral votes. This means that the Republican Party is losing popularity over time.

And don't be disingenuous. 55% of Americans identify as pro-choice. This is the highest number in more than 20 years. 39% identify as pro-life. This is the lowest number in more than 20 years. This is simply a fact. The Supreme Curt overturning the Roe decision will activate trigger laws in many red states rendering abortion immediately illegal. That's how trigger laws work.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Perhaps you were unaware that the popular vote is still counted every presidential election. It is just not used to elect the president.

It's counted for informational purposes only.

Republicans used to win both the actual electoral votes, and also the popular vote.

Primarily because of one massive blue state. Take California out of the mix and neither the Hillary Von Pantsuit or Brandon would have ended up with a majority of popular votes.

Now, when they do win the presidency, they only win the electoral votes. This means that the Republican Party is losing popularity over time.

Every elected president has won only on electoral votes. It would be helpful if you had a mature understanding of why the founding fathers set up the electoral college. They were brilliant. If we elected presidents today with a popular vote, roughly 5 states would pick every president. States like Kansas, Wyoming, Nebraska, Alabama, etc would have virtually no say in who runs the executive office. As for republicans losing popularity, will you be suggesting the same after the coming midterms?

And don't be disingenuous. 55% of Americans identify as pro-choice. This is the highest number in more than 20 years. 39% identify as pro-life. This is the lowest number in more than 20 years.

And you get that 55% figure from weighted opinion polls.

This is simply a fact. The Supreme Curt overturning the Roe decision will activate trigger laws in many red states rendering abortion immediately illegal. That's how trigger laws work.

Regardless, short of an amendment to the US Constitution directly protecting abortion, the issue belongs at the state level. Yes, some states will go further with anti-abortion laws then others, however the chances of abortion being completely outlawed are nil. And I am sure that those women in red states have heard of something called "transportation" by such means as automobiles, trains, and airplanes to states with less restrictive laws, in most cases nearby.

 

[lwf]

It's counted for informational purposes only.

Primarily because of one massive blue state. Take California out of the mix and neither the Hillary Von Pantsuit or Brandon would have ended up with a majority of popular votes.

Every elected president has won only on electoral votes. It would be helpful if you had a mature understanding of why the founding fathers set up the electoral college. They were brilliant. If we elected presidents today with a popular vote, roughly 5 states would pick every president. States like Kansas, Wyoming, Nebraska, Alabama, etc would have virtually no say in who runs the executive office. As for republicans losing popularity, will you be suggesting the same after the coming midterms?

Clever dodge. I never said that Republicans win only on electoral votes. I said that Republicans win ONLY the electoral votes. This means they no longer win the popular vote. And I am not suggesting that we should go to a popular vote system. I am pointing out that the Republican party is waning in popularity.

And you get that 55% figure from weighted opinion polls.

Regardless, short of an amendment to the US Constitution directly protecting abortion, the issue belongs at the state level. Yes, some states will go further with anti-abortion laws then others, however the chances of abortion being completely outlawed are nil. And I am sure that those women in red states have heard of something called "transportation" by such means as automobiles, trains, and airplanes to states with less restrictive laws, in most cases nearby.

You would be wrong. Abortion WILL be completely outlawed in many red states the instant Roe is struck down. That's how trigger laws work. While the actual rate of enforcement would be in question, it WILL be illegal to get an abortion in about half of the red states in the US the second the Supreme Court decides that Roe v. Wade is overturned. And the others will likely restrict it to the point of being effectively outlawed.

And yes, some women in these red states with the means to deal with the inconvenience of travelling to blue states will still technically be able to get abortions, (assuming that laws aren't put into place to make this illegal as well.) But we're talking about voters here. How many women do you think who otherwise might have voted for a Republican or not voted at all will decide to make it a point to vote for a Democratic governor, representative, or Senator who vows to undo or refuse to enforce these laws?

 

[MAGAnificent]

Clever dodge. I never said that Republicans win only on electoral votes. I said that Republicans win ONLY the electoral votes. This means they no longer win the popular vote. And I am not suggesting that we should go to a popular vote system. I am pointing out that the Republican party is waning in popularity.

You missed the point entirely. As we do not elect presidents by way of a popular vote system, there is no popular vote to win. As for the republican [arty waning in popularity, that actually holds true for both parties. As a conservative, I have not been a republican for over 30 years. I am a conservative independent. The democrats have gone far left and off the map and the republicans have primarily become the RINO party or librul lite.

You would be wrong. Abortion WILL be completely outlawed in many red states the instant Roe is struck down. That's how trigger laws work. While the actual rate of enforcement would be in question, it WILL be illegal to get an abortion in about half of the red states in the US the second the Supreme Court decides that Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Abortion was never completely outlawed before Roe VS Wade. And your suggestion that it will become illegal in half the red states is wild eyed projection.

And the others will likely restrict it to the point of being effectively outlawed.

Doubtful. With the issue returned to the states, what will will see is primarily common sense restrictions, Late term abortion(murder) may be outlawed in many states

And yes, some women in these red states with the means to deal with the inconvenience of travelling to blue states will still technically be able to get abortions, (assuming that laws aren't put into place to make this illegal as well.) But we're talking about voters here. How many women do you think who otherwise might have voted for a Republican or not voted at all will decide to make it a point to vote for a Democratic governor, representative, or Senator who vows to undo or refuse to enforce these laws?

You are primarily talking about women in blue states that have no intention of voting republican anyway. Either way, it just means the fight goes back to being at the state level where constitutionally it belongs.

 

[choiceone]

It's counted for informational purposes only.

Primarily because of one massive blue state. Take California out of the mix and neither the Hillary Von Pantsuit or Brandon would have ended up with a majority of popular votes.

Every elected president has won only on electoral votes. It would be helpful if you had a mature understanding of why the founding fathers set up the electoral college. They were brilliant. If we elected presidents today with a popular vote, roughly 5 states would pick every president. States like Kansas, Wyoming, Nebraska, Alabama, etc would have virtually no say in who runs the executive office. As for republicans losing popularity, will you be suggesting the same after the coming midterms?

This is bull. The popular count is the BASIS of the electoral college apportionment. Of course, the Republicans want to substitute electors that don't pay any attention to the popular count, because they are an unpopular political party.

And you get that 55% figure from weighted opinion polls.

Regardless, short of an amendment to the US Constitution directly protecting abortion, the issue belongs at the state level. Yes, some states will go further with anti-abortion laws then others, however the chances of abortion being completely outlawed are nil. And I am sure that those women in red states have heard of something called "transportation" by such means as automobiles, trains, and airplanes to states with less restrictive laws, in most cases nearby.

First, the figure the poster got was a very conservative one. When it comes to people who do not want Roe to be overturned, the figures have been anywhere from 58% to 68-70%. So only about a third of people side with you.

Second, there is one reason the SC would overturn Roe, and it's not because it is wrong.

Three of the SC justices have been appointed by Trump, who did not win a majority of the popular vote, falsely accused his opponent of cheating and irresponsibility, and lost the next election and tried to overturn it by committing a criminal insurrection.

FYI, they have just participated in the case on Barry Jones of, I think, Nevada or Arizona. He was convicted of raping and murdering a four-year-old and sentenced to death. It turns out medical evidence proves that he could not possibly have murdered her and there are two other people who could have. Because he had bad public defenders, they never even tried to get this medical evidence, which would have been easy to get. But the SC said that innocence was not enough for a federal or supreme court to overturn a state conviction, so the state can put him to death if it wants.

Congrats on the SC justices you got. They don't care about truth or justice. They only care about the power of states to kill anybody they want to.

 

[MAGAnificent]

This is bull. The popular count is the BASIS of the electoral college apportionment.

Nope. The population of each state is the basis of electoral college apportionment.

Of course, the Republicans want to substitute electors that don't pay any attention to the popular count, because they are an unpopular political party.

Sounds like projection on your part. However the national popular vote has nothing to do with who is elected president. You are just ranting against the electoral college because you are butthurt over the 2000 and 2016 election results. If Owl Gore and the hildabeast had won by the electoral college and failed to get a majority of the popular vote, you would be defending the electoral college with all of your being.

First, the figure the poster got was a very conservative one. When it comes to people who do not want Roe to be overturned, the figures have been anywhere from 58% to 68-70%. So only about a third of people side with you.

You are cherry picking weighted opinion poll stats. You have no real clue were most stand. The reality is that it differs in different states, age groups, races, genders, religious beliefs etc.

Second, there is one reason the SC would overturn Roe, and it's not because it is wrong.

For the sake of this argument, it does not matter if you are pro-abortion or prolife. Whether you want to admit it or not, Roe Vs Wade was a case of judicial activism on the US Supreme Court. It was legislation from the bench. That in itself makes Roe Vs Wade wrong. Abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution. The issue should return to the states and then you can try the constitutional amendment route if you like.

Three of the SC justices have been appointed by Trump, who did not win a majority of the popular vote, falsely accused his opponent of cheating and irresponsibility, and lost the next election and tried to overturn it by committing a criminal insurrection.

First, there was not a majority of the popular vote to win. We elect presidents by way of the electoral college. As for Trump accusing his opponent of cheating, he is wrong. Biden is too stupid to cheat on his own. The cheating was done for him while he hunkered down in his basement in Delaware. And Trump had nothing whatsoever to do with the riot at the Capitol. He could have condemned it sooner then he did, however he did not dream it up, organize it or anything else. That's just a lunatic narrative that the democrat party is pushing. According to the FBI and the Capitol Police, that riot was planned at least a weak prior, and well before the speech the democrats blame for the riot.

FYI, they have just participated in the case on Barry Jones of, I think, Nevada or Arizona. He was convicted of raping and murdering a four-year-old and sentenced to death. It turns out medical evidence proves that he could not possibly have murdered her and there are two other people who could have. Because he had bad public defenders, they never even tried to get this medical evidence, which would have been easy to get. But the SC said that innocence was not enough for a federal or supreme court to overturn a state conviction, so the state can put him to death if it wants.

Congrats on the SC justices you got. They don't care about truth or justice. They only care about the power of states to kill anybody they want to.

 

[choiceone]

Nope. The population of each state is the basis of electoral college apportionment.

The percentage of votes for X and Y in various districts in a state determines the electoral college apportionment in that state. Thus, the popular vote in each state IS the basis.

Sounds like projection on your part. However the national popular vote has nothing to do with who is elected president. You are just ranting against the electoral college because you are butthurt over the 2000 and 2016 election results. If Owl Gore and the hildabeast had won by the electoral college and failed to get a majority of the popular vote, you would be defending the electoral college with all of your being.

I would never be defending the electoral college over the popular vote. A real president gets both, and a fake president can only get one.

You are cherry picking weighted opinion poll stats. You have no real clue were most stand. The reality is that it differs in different states, age groups, races, genders, religious beliefs etc.

Of course I have a clue. Opinion polls taken using states all over the country were done. Polls are imperfect and have margins of error, so serious people consider more than one. Various polls have recently been published on the specific issue of whether Roe v Wade should or should not be overturned. They have varied as I have indicated.

You are correct, however. If I remember correctly, the New England state that has the highest support for abortion rights is 67%, and the Southern state with the lowest support for abortion rights is about 42 or 45%.
As for age groups, people over 65 have the lowest support and people under thirty have the highest, at 67%. I am not aware of significant race and gender differences. As for religious beliefs, Pew Research Center has shown a consistent anti-abortion stance for Evangelicals, a consistent pro-choice stand for mainstream Protestants, and a stronger pro-choice stand for the religiously unaffiliated, the great majority of Americans.

For the sake of this argument, it does not matter if you are pro-abortion or prolife. Whether you want to admit it or not, Roe Vs Wade was a case of judicial activism on the US Supreme Court. It was legislation from the bench. That in itself makes Roe Vs Wade wrong. Abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution. The issue should return to the states and then you can try the constitutional amendment route if you like.

Have you read Alito's draft? It is HE who is the judicial activist, as he has seriously distorted the historical context and the text of the Constitution in order to justify his case. The reason abortion isn't mentioned in the constitution is because women in the 1700s and much of the 1800s remedied "suppression of the courses" herbally.

It's the same thing women did in the 1970s in Bangladesh, where anti-abortion laws were strict. They told their female gynecologists their periods didn't come and received medicine for restoring them.

In England in the 1700s, it was called bringing on the flowers. Americans in the 1700s and 1800s called it taking the trade. Alito didn't know any of that, because he didn't do any significant research on women's history for the draft.

Today, abortion techniques are used for ectopic pregnancies, molar pregnancies, and incomplete miscarriages, and they are necessary from a medical view for best medical practices for the life/health of the woman. But the was Alito wrote the draft, a state could ban even this and cause the death of the woman.

Alito didn't think that women's rights to life, liberty, and property, as he discussed "most women" as married and under coverture, and he implied they weren't legal persons with these rights. Too bad for him that women were a real category in every US Census and both daughters who were neither infants nor wives and widows, as well as a few certain married women, were not under coverture and had rights of inheritance and property and business ownership and management, including making of contracts. So women were persons, for the Census and also clearly for other purposes at least if they weren't infants or wives.

Meanwhile, no one could count the unborn in the census because it had to be an "actual Enumeration," not a projected count. So they could never have been considered persons. That's why they've never been counted in the Census. The rights to life, liberty, and property are only for persons, no matter what Alito claims.

 

[MAGAnificent]

The percentage of votes for X and Y in various districts in a state determines the electoral college apportionment in that state. Thus, the popular vote in each state IS the basis.

The keywords: "In state".

I would never be defending the electoral college over the popular vote. A real president gets both, and a fake president can only get one.

That is a very immature and ignorant way of looking at it. We elect presidents by electoral college vote only. National popular vote never mattered and still does not. We are a union of 50 states. Unless you are completely ignorant of American History, you understand why it was set up that way. The thirteen colonies would not have ratified the US Constitution otherwise.

Of course I have a clue.

Have you read Alito's draft? It is HE who is the judicial activist, as he has seriously distorted the historical context and the text of the Constitution in order to justify his case. The reason abortion isn't mentioned in the constitution is because women in the 1700s and much of the 1800s remedied "suppression of the courses" herbally.

100% baloney. The judicial activism occurred when the Roe Vs Wade decision was cast.

 

[choiceone]

First, there was not a majority of the popular vote to win. We elect presidents by way of the electoral college. As for Trump accusing his opponent of cheating, he is wrong. Biden is too stupid to cheat on his own. The cheating was done for him while he hunkered down in his basement in Delaware. And Trump had nothing whatsoever to do with the riot at the Capitol. He could have condemned it sooner then he did, however he did not dream it up, organize it or anything else. That's just a lunatic narrative that the democrat party is pushing. According to the FBI and the Capitol Police, that riot was planned at least a weak prior, and well before the speech the democrats blame for the riot.

I have already explained that the popular vote in each state is the electoral college vote apportionment basis.

Trump wasn't just wrong for accusing his opponent of cheating, because Biden and the Democrats didn't need to cheat.

The Republican vote split in 1992 when Ross Perot, a pro-choice Republican, ran as an Independent and siphoned off so many Republican votes than the Democrat Clinton won.

In 2000, Bush, Jr., was able to win with the electoral college but had over 150,000 fewer votes than Gore.

In 2012, when Romney lost and Obama won reelection, over a million more voters chose Democratic Representatives, but the House was majority Republican because of Republican gerrymandering.

Then, in 2016, Trump won the electoral college, but Hillary won over a million more popular votes.

So it is predictable that, in 2020, when millions of people, including Republicans, had hated Trump for more than a year, Biden won. All he had to do was not be Trump.

Donald Trump knew well in advance that he could lose and so began priming the electorate from at least August with the claim that the Democrats were going to cheat. The testimony for the hearing that aired this week has already noted that he was told again and again after the election that he just lost, to no avail.

The phone call between Trump and the Republican guy in charge of elections in Georgia seemed as clear as crystal - Trump was asking him to cheat so he could win. There are several significant instances like this.
Any reasonable person could have told you Trump was a con man way back on the 2016 Republican primary stage when he first sucked the oxygen out of the room. The looks on the faces of legitimate Republicans showed they knew very well what he was - you didn't have to be a Democrat to know.

I have no doubt that the riot was planned, and that Trump was in on the plan and started it all because he's so paranoid about losing.

I can't stand GOP positions, but I feel real sorry for Republicans that they have ruined their party. Cheney and Kinsinger (sp?) are intelligent, principled people who are way better than the shmucks who are Trump pets.

 

[MAGAnificent]

I have already explained that the popular vote in each state is the electoral college vote apportionment basis.

Trump wasn't just wrong for accusing his opponent of cheating, because Biden and the Democrats didn't need to cheat.

However the democrats did cheat.

Then, in 2016, Trump won the electoral college, but Hillary won over a million more popular votes.

National popular vote is meaningless.

So it is predictable that, in 2020, when millions of people, including Republicans, had hated Trump for more than a year, Biden won. All he had to do was not be Trump.

Yet more voted for Trump in 2020 then did in 2016. Go figure! Where is the republican hate you speak of?

Donald Trump knew well in advance that he could lose and so began priming the electorate from at least August with the claim that the Democrats were going to cheat. The testimony for the hearing that aired this week has already noted that he was told again and again after the election that he just lost, to no avail.

Mindless TDS drivel.

I have no doubt that the riot was planned, and that Trump was in on the plan and started it all because he's so paranoid about losing.

Mindless TDS motivated projection.

I can't stand GOP positions, but I feel real sorry for Republicans that they have ruined their party. Cheney and Kinsinger (sp?) are intelligent, principled people who are way better than the shmucks who are Trump pets.

Trump is quite obviously living in your head rent free.

 

[choiceone]

. . . . Abortion WILL be completely outlawed in many red states the instant Roe is struck down. That's how trigger laws work. While the actual rate of enforcement would be in question, it WILL be illegal to get an abortion in about half of the red states in the US the second the Supreme Court decides that Roe v. Wade is overturned. And the others will likely restrict it to the point of being effectively outlawed.

I agree with this. There are some red states that will have problems, because their state constitutions provide some guarantees that can render unconstitutional the new trigger laws, but otherwise, these will go into effect.

And yes, some women in these red states with the means to deal with the inconvenience of travelling to blue states will still technically be able to get abortions, (assuming that laws aren't put into place to make this illegal as well.)

Some of these laws are so extreme that the majority of voters in the respective states do not support them. Some are also exercises is criminal negligence. In at least one state, I think, there's no exception to save a woman's life in an emergency. There are online articles about doctors who warn that the laws are a serious danger to the life and health of some women. I have no doubt that the American equivalents of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland and Izebela in Poland will emerge if the laws go into effect.

But we're talking about voters here. How many women do you think who otherwise might have voted for a Republican or not voted at all will decide to make it a point to vote for a Democratic governor, representative, or Senator who vows to undo or refuse to enforce these laws?

It is possible, frankly, that Democrats will do better in November than people think, because if Roe is overturned, abortion will become an issue close enough to home for a lot of women to compete with
inflation.

 

[MAGAnificent]

It is possible, frankly, that Democrats will do better in November than people think, because if Roe is overturned, abortion will become an issue close enough to home for a lot of women to compete with
inflation.

I would not bank on that. The religious right will come out and vote in large enough numbers to overwhelm any voters butthurt over Roe VS Wade going down in flames.

 

[weaver2]

100% baloney. The judicial activism occurred when the Roe Vs Wade decision was cast.

What part of Roe is judicial activism? I've read Roe several times I don't see "activism". The SC was asked to determine whether the Texas abortion laws were unconstitutional because they denied Roe her right to make a private decision about her personal life. They determined the Texas laws were unconstitutional based on several Amendments. They gave historical, factual, and logical reasons for their decision. Nowhere did their decision require states to make specific laws. Where is the "activism"

 

[MAGAnificent]

What part of Roe is judicial activism? I've read Roe several times I don't see "activism". The SC was asked to determine whether the Texas abortion laws were unconstitutional because they denied Roe her right to make a private decision about her personal life. They determined the Texas laws were unconstitutional based on several Amendments. They gave historical, factual, and logical reasons for their decision. Nowhere did their decision require states to make specific laws. Where is the "activism"

100% Baloney. Abortion is not mentioned in the US Constitution.......at all. Claiming it's legal under privacy is simply judicial activism. In any case, it's a fragile decision that is always at risk of another decision.

 

[choiceone]

However the democrats did cheat.

You need to document this, show that they cheated more than Republicans, which I sincerely doubt, and also show that it was significant enough to affect the outcome, which no one has been able to do.

National popular vote is meaningless.

National popular vote is an indicator of the size of the constituency that dislikes the loser of it and is willing to put up with the winner of it.

Yet more voted for Trump in 2020 then did in 2016.

That's because so many more people bothered to vote in 2020 than in 2016.

Go figure! Where is the republican hate you speak of?

Here's the article about the 100 prominent Republican pols who threatened to form a third party over the Trump issue a year ago.

Over 100 Republicans sign letter threatening to form third party

More than 100 Republicans, including former elected officials, have signed a letter threatening to form a third party, taking issue with former President Donald Trump.

abcnews.go.com

There are enough Republicans who are never Trumpers that you can find them across the web.

Mindless TDS drivel.

Mindless TDS motivated projection.

I don't have TDS, because unlike Trump and his followers, I do not engage in either psychological projection or
use projection as a strategy to win anything. If you do not believe in and practice truth, you don't have a true life and can't have a true afterlife. You don't get anything in truth. Only very stupid persons insult truth to the extent that Trump has in his life, right out in the open for anyone to see.

Trump is quite obviously living in your head rent free.

Trump isn't living in my head. In my head, he doesn't have a life.

 

[choiceone]

I would not bank on that. The religious right will come out and vote in large enough numbers to overwhelm any voters butthurt over Roe VS Wade going down in flames.

I'm not saying that is impossible, but the religious right is not as big as you seem to think. Makes me wonder where you live.

 

[choiceone]

100% Baloney. Abortion is not mentioned in the US Constitution.......at all. Claiming it's legal under privacy is simply judicial activism. In any case, it's a fragile decision that is always at risk of another decision.

I was deeply interest in the issue of an SC decision "that is always at risk of another decision."
The thing is this. Alito's draft has been seriously criticized by major legal figures, including some who saw Roe v Wade as weak. So if this SC puts forward something this controversial, as soon as more justices are put on the court who are less conservative, I have no doubt that this one will also be "at risk of another decision."

Of course, I'm aware that the Republicans don't really like democratic elections and other government features - they really want an authoritarian state run by Republicans. But I don't think they're going to succeed in overthrowing democratic elections and other government features, just in keeping them corrupt for a time. In the end, they're going to lose again.

The status quo and regression never completely hold out against progress in any major area of society.
That is the reason that Europe, North America, East Asia, etc., are all as modern now as they are.

The young are inevitably less conservative populationally, so as the old die out, the society moves in the correct direction. I am young at heart, so I will be sad if I have to go before I see them triumph, but I have no doubt that the less conservative young will triumph.

 

[weaver2]

100% Baloney. Abortion is not mentioned in the US Constitution.......at all. Claiming it's legal under privacy is simply judicial activism. In any case, it's a fragile decision that is always at risk of another decision.

There are a lot of things that are not mentioned in the Constitution and are still allowable. What the SC said is the choosing to get an abortion is a very private matted like other private unenumerated matters like marrying whomever you want to marry, choosing a profession, choosing a state to live in and like and is protected by certain Amendments. If the decision of abort is a allowable as a private matter then abortion should be legal. It's not like they are inventing abortion and springing it on citizens they are simply saying Texas is wrong to deny abortion by making it illegal.

 

[choiceone]

100% Baloney. Abortion is not mentioned in the US Constitution.......at all.

I find this statement "Abortion is not mentioned in the US Constitution" fascinating because it is going to become possible, at some point, to have a completely new approach to freedom from pregnancy.

Years ago now, much research began on the fact that the enzyme indoleamine 2, 3 dioxygenaze was necessary for sustaining implantation in a pregnancy. It is produced at the direction of the blastocyst by the placenta. In murine experiments, anti-agents working against it were injected into the female mouse at the site of implantation where the placenta developed. The chemical changes restored the immune system of the female mouse and her body naturally ejected the placenta and embryo, but not in all cases. If the mouse was pregnant by an identical twin, this did not happen.

Some Chinese researchers saw in this a potential for development of an abortion method. However, it would not be an abortion method, but a method of restoring a suppressed immune system. Everyone has a right to their immune system - it's what serves our health. That pregnancy suppresses a woman's immune system makes it a highly suspect event.

Eventually, a woman will probably go a doctor to have her immune system normalized. That this would also end pregnancy would not be the intention, as it would not be able to end all pregnancies. Its purpose would simply be to normalize an immune system, just as women in the 1700s used herbal remedies to "bring on the flowers."

 

[minnie616]

100% Baloney. Abortion is not mentioned in the US Constitution.......at all. Claiming it's legal under privacy is simply judicial activism. In any case, it's a fragile decision that is always at risk of another decision.

Before the Supreme Court looked at the Roe v Wade case, several right to privacy cases had been decided by previous Supreme Courts.

Those right to privacy cases were precedents before Roe v. Wade was even looked at.

If Roe v Wade is overturned, the right to privacy decisions / precedents that came before Roe could be dismantled including parents rights child rearing such as school choice.
………….

The following cases could become dismantled if Roe v Wade were overturned.

Weems v. United States (1910)
In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

Olmstead v. United States (1928)
The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis' dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be "habitual criminals" is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.

Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)
The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan's dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person's to privacy, particularly when it comes to

 

[MAGAnificent]

Before the Supreme Court looked at the Roe v Wade case, several right to privacy cases had been decided by previous Supreme Courts.

Those right to privacy cases were precedents before Roe v. Wade was even looked at.

If Roe v Wade is overturned, the right to privacy decisions / precedents that came before Roe could be dismantled including parents rights child rearing such as school choice.
………….

The following cases could become dismantled if Roe v Wade were overturned.

Weems v. United States (1910)
In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

Olmstead v. United States (1928)
The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis' dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be "habitual criminals" is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.

Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)
The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan's dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person's to privacy, particularly when it comes to

With all due respect, mentioning other cases is not helping your argument. Abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution and Roe VS Wade is a simple case of judicial activism.

 

[MAGAnificent]

I find this statement "Abortion is not mentioned in the US Constitution" fascinating because it is going to become possible, at some point, to have a completely new approach to freedom from pregnancy.

Years ago now, much research began on the fact that the enzyme indoleamine 2, 3 dioxygenaze was necessary for sustaining implantation in a pregnancy. It is produced at the direction of the blastocyst by the placenta. In murine experiments, anti-agents working against it were injected into the female mouse at the site of implantation where the placenta developed. The chemical changes restored the immune system of the female mouse and her body naturally ejected the placenta and embryo, but not in all cases. If the mouse was pregnant by an identical twin, this did not happen.

Some Chinese researchers saw in this a potential for development of an abortion method. However, it would not be an abortion method, but a method of restoring a suppressed immune system. Everyone has a right to their immune system - it's what serves our health. That pregnancy suppresses a woman's immune system makes it a highly suspect event.

Eventually, a woman will probably go a doctor to have her immune system normalized. That this would also end pregnancy would not be the intention, as it would not be able to end all pregnancies. Its purpose would simply be to normalize an immune system, just as women in the 1700s used herbal remedies to "bring on the flowers."

Yawn......still judicial activism.

 

[MAGAnificent]

There are a lot of things that are not mentioned in the Constitution and are still allowable. What the SC said is the choosing to get an abortion is a very private matted like other private unenumerated matters like marrying whomever you want to marry, choosing a profession, choosing a state to live in and like and is protected by certain Amendments. If the decision of abort is a allowable as a private matter then abortion should be legal. It's not like they are inventing abortion and springing it on citizens they are simply saying Texas is wrong to deny abortion by making it illegal.

What you are failing to grasp is that the SCOTUS is not there to legislate. It's there to interpret according to the written constitution. That does not mean making up their own definitions of privacy. The SCOTUS does not always get it right. Roe VS Wade has always been on fragile ground as it has never been based on anything more then overly creative interpretation. That's why the left shits itself every time a conservative justice is nominated. They know that Roe VS Wade does not stand on strong legal ground.

 

[minnie616]

With all due respect, mentioning other cases is not helping your argument. Abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution and Roe VS Wade is a simple case of judicial activism.

I disagree. In fact Judicial activism is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Separation of Church and state,
The size of the Supreme Court,
The right to remain silent, and
Executive Privilege are not mentioned in the Constitution either.

 

[minnie616]

What you are failing to grasp is that the SCOTUS is not there to legislate. It's there to interpret according to the written constitution. That does not mean making up their own definitions of privacy. The SCOTUS does not always get it right. Roe VS Wade has always been on fragile ground as it has never been based on anything more then overly creative interpretation. That's why the left shits itself every time a conservative justice is nominated. They know that Roe VS Wade does not stand on strong legal ground.

I disagree.

Perhaps you did not remember that Roe was decided 7 to 2 by conservative justices.

Casey was reaffirmed by a very conservative Supreme Court.

But the newly appointed mostly Catholic Justices just want to send it to states to decide based

I guess states should decide whom you can marry.
Sorry Justice Thomas your marriage is null and void.
You did agree that states have rights to tell their state citizens what is moral and what isn’t .

States could decide what kind of school your kids can attend.
Perhaps the new Justices will decide only a Catholic school is moral.

Throwing it to the states to decide is not at all moral and of course it also interferes with our first amendment rights . We should be keeping the church and state separate.

Banning abortions interferes with Pro choice Religious Liberty and the rights of people who are not religious.