Justices signal they’ll OK new abortion limits, may toss Roe

[Common Sense 1]

When was the last time the court voted to limit rights? Japanese-American internment?

They aren't just leaving it to the states to decide.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Its not another body until it can breathe on its own. I suppose you are willing to pay all those extra taxes for the food stamps and police enforcement, child welfare services, etc....and believe me it is going to be a bunch more than it is now.

If you have more people you’ll have more taxpayers and thus it wouldn’t be a burden

 

[ClaraD]

That's because abortion there is much more accessible and often paid for in full or virtually so by national health care, and there are better exceptions made for later pregnancy, because they include serious fetal anomalies even if they do not threaten the woman's health or life and are not incompatible with life narrowly defined.

yeah, he is failing to realize that in Mississippi there is ONE clinic in the entire state...and that clinic serves the entire state...meaning appointments need to be made from pretty much the minute a woman knows she is pregnant...in order to qualify for an abortion before 20 weeks. This would shut out 60% or more of those seeking abortions. Tbh they need to make the abortion pill free.

 

[ClaraD]

"Your decision to kill your husband is private and murder is already regulated."

False.

"You guys"

Roe v Wade does not say abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor. So you disagree with Roe?

um, first of all it is a violation of the rules to bring someone's family member into the discussion. Second, I would say he can breathe on his own.
Medical decisions are 100% between the doctor and the patient.....HIPAA.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It's already been done

View attachment 67363331​

Now mothers are Nazis? This reveals a lot about the left wing mindset.

I will just remember when I am called a Nazi that your people’s definition of Nazi includes loving mothers

 

[RAMOSS]

yes, it pretty much endorses abortion, if the husband suspects infidelity. However, there is nothing there that says that abortion is murder or that God forbids it.

There are passages that indicate that a fetus is not given full 'person' status. For example, if there is a fight, and someone causes a woman to miscarriage, they own money to the father. If the woman dies, then there is capital punishment
Exodus 21:22

22And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders].

23But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life,

 

[Plasmaball]

I ignored nothing. I commented on her opinion that a woman should be able to choose abortion up until birth.


Yes, I know what she was talking about.

Again that's not what rogue said. You are taking it out of context for your own warped version of what rogue said. It's dishonest.

Rogue thinks abortions should be legal up to past 6 months if the lottery is in danger and the fetus is no longer viable due to issues..

That's not the same as abortion should be legal past 6 months.

That's dishonest and typical of pro lifers

 

[choiceone]

Pregnancy is not a violation of a woman’s “bodily integrity”. In fact it’s the sole biological reason her body exists

I don't think so. Women live to an average of, I think, 77 years here now, and they go through menopause at about 50 years. It isn't really safe for a woman to produce offspring over 40. From 40 on, that's 37 years, and from 50 on, that's 27 years. 77-37 =40, 77-27 = 50. Your reason makes no sense for the 27-37 years after 40 and especially after 50.

 

[911Sparky]

No, it is you that has so much to learn. The Constitution does not exclude unborn babies. Nor, does it make any decisions on what is human. It includes all life including those inside the tummy of their mothers. So, the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness includes the unborn. Therefore, what the Court in 1973 did was to become political rather than a separate entity of the Government. It should have stayed out of the controversy and let states decide or in other words, let the people democratically decide who they let live and who they kill. If New Yorkers don't like the heavy state taxation, they can move to Florida or some state without state taxations. Same with abortion. Don't like the law against abortion in Utah, move to California. Roe v Wade made a law in which courts are not to do, make laws. A law that allows to kill unborn babies. It's a bad law and needs to be done away with if the courts are going to be separate of Congress and the Presidency ever again. We are supposed to have 3 separate branches of the Government. We don't right now. Getting rid of this bad law doesn't get rid of abortion anyways. If you live in a state that prohibits any abortion you can drive to a state that does. I'm sure your insurance will cover it.

Do you see any circumstance where abortion might be justified, such as rape, incest, to save the life of the mother?

 

[choiceone]

No, it is to continue the species.

If that were true, all women would get pregnant and produce offspring, and they don't.

 

[HangLow]

You do not have the right to violate anyone's security of person to find out whether she is pregnant, whether this is a product of consensual sex or rape, and her medical information is as private as any man's.

No person would have any right to use a woman's body as human embryos do without consent, so even if it were a person, it would not have a right to life at the expense of her bodily integrity. It has the innocence of a legally insane rapist, not a flower.

 

[Plasmaball]

You can not be for limited government and prolife.

 

[GummyVitamins]

That's because abortion there is much more accessible and often paid for in full or virtually so by national health care, and there are better exceptions made for later pregnancy, because they include serious fetal anomalies even if they do not threaten the woman's health or life and are not incompatible with life narrowly defined.

Try again.

Mississippi's law:

The requirement you seek is right in the bill.

 

[Plasmaball]

Are they really,?

 

[Grasshopper121212]

I have repeatedly explained that the Constitution has very sparse information on "persons" because it really does not mention women and children, pregnancy, and the unborn in the basic documents, but it provides enough information for us to know that women are persons and the unborn are not.
po
What the court did was consider the issues of security of person, unenumerated rights, the basic rights to life, liberty, and property of actual persons, the notion of privacy, and equal liberty. It had to function as an arbiter of the state and individual powers in the 10th Amendment because Texas, among other states, wanted to control the body of an individual person in a way antithetical to the rights of persons.

Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey are good law and guarantee a basic right to persons which state governments should never be allowed to violate because they are run by male chauvinist pigs and their female breeders.

Care to share exactly where the Constitution provides that the unborn are not persons? You won't find it. As far as the 10th amendment, are you talking about the individual rights of the woman or the baby? Again, unborn children have the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property).
You actually stated and made my case. You said clearly that the Court made two good laws. Courts aren't to make laws. That's reserved for Congress as stated in the Constitution. The decisions therefore were made on political grounds and not founded in the Constitution. I also note that you don't like democracy either since you don't believe in state rights for the voters to vote on laws. Since the 70's, the Democrat leftists have been slowly trying to get rid of our government and Constitution and replace it with Communism and tyranny.

 

[ClaraD]

Care to share exactly where the Constitution provides that the unborn are not persons? You won't find it. As far as the 10th amendment, are you talking about the individual rights of the woman or the baby? Again, unborn children have the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property).
You actually stated and made my case. You said clearly that the Court made two good laws. Courts aren't to make laws. That's reserved for Congress as stated in the Constitution. The decisions therefore were made on political grounds and not founded in the Constitution. I also note that you don't like democracy either since you don't believe in state rights for the voters to vote on laws. Since the 70's, the Democrat leftists have been slowly trying to get rid of our government and Constitution and replace it with Communism and tyranny.

the Constitution doesn't define what a person is....it just says person.....

 

[Arlette]

Care to share exactly where the Constitution provides that the unborn are not persons? You won't find it. As far as the 10th amendment, are you talking about the individual rights of the woman or the baby? Again, unborn children have the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property).
You actually stated and made my case. You said clearly that the Court made two good laws. Courts aren't to make laws. That's reserved for Congress as stated in the Constitution. The decisions therefore were made on political grounds and not founded in the Constitution. I also note that you don't like democracy either since you don't believe in state rights for the voters to vote on laws. Since the 70's, the Democrat leftists have been slowly trying to get rid of our government and Constitution and replace it with Communism and tyranny.

Care to share where the legitimate interest of Mississippi is in having a woman give birth to a child she doesn't want?

 

[Grasshopper121212]

"Freedom of Religion" means:

I have no right to insist that a person who belongs to a religion which forbids abortion have an abortion.​

​

I have no right to never insist that a person who belongs to a religion which does not forbid abortion not have an abortion.​

​

If I belonged to a religion which forbade having abortions, I would have the right not to have anyone from a religion which did not forbid religions insisting that I have an abortion.​

​

If I belonged to a religion which did not forbid having abortions, I would have the right not to have anyone from a religion which did forbid religions insisting that I not have an abortion.​

or is that too complex?

Did you get a headache writing that? No one has said that a Church can force anyone to have an abortion or not have an abortion. But, we can preach against abortion and teach that it is wrong. If enough people believe abortion is wrong in a state and vote to eliminate abortions, that's called democracy. Don't like it, move to another state that does. Or, visit another state to have the abortion. What needs to happen is Roe v Wade and Casey be reversed because this was a case where the Court made a new law. That's not their job. Reversing the decision will give back the credibility of the Courts doing what they are Constitutionally allowed to do which does not include making new law. Making up fake interpretations of Amendments doesn't justify the unlawfulness of what the 1973 Court did.

 

[ClaraD]

Did you get a headache writing that? No one has said that a Church can force anyone to have an abortion or not have an abortion. But, we can preach against abortion and teach that it is wrong. If enough people believe abortion is wrong in a state and vote to eliminate abortions, that's called democracy. Don't like it, move to another state that does. Or, visit another state to have the abortion. What needs to happen is Roe v Wade and Casey be reversed because this was a case where the Court made a new law. That's not their job. Reversing the decision will give back the credibility of the Courts doing what they are Constitutionally allowed to do which does not include making new law. Making up fake interpretations of Amendments doesn't justify the unlawfulness of what the 1973 Court did.

you can preach in your church....but nowhere does the Christian bible say that abortion is wrong...in fact, it endorses abortion. You however, cannot preach to people who do not want to participate in your nonsense.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

the Constitution doesn't define what a person is....it just says person.....

That's correct. What Roe v Wade did is define what a person is creating a new law which they are prohibited doing. To re-establish credibility to the Court for that law breaking, Roe v Wade must be overturned. Let the people democratically decide through the states.

 

[ClaraD]

That's correct. What Roe v Wade did is define what a person is creating a new law which they are prohibited doing. To re-establish credibility to the Court for that law breaking, Roe v Wade must be overturned. Let the people democratically decide through the states.

You realize the very bible you claim to follow also says that a fetus is not a full person right?

 

[RAMOSS]

Care to share exactly where the Constitution provides that the unborn are not persons? You won't find it. As far as the 10th amendment, are you talking about the individual rights of the woman or the baby? Again, unborn children have the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property).
You actually stated and made my case. You said clearly that the Court made two good laws. Courts aren't to make laws. That's reserved for Congress as stated in the Constitution. The decisions therefore were made on political grounds and not founded in the Constitution. I also note that you don't like democracy either since you don't believe in state rights for the voters to vote on laws. Since the 70's, the Democrat leftists have been slowly trying to get rid of our government and Constitution and replace it with Communism and tyranny.

Care to show where the status of the unborn is mentioned at all? No, you can't, because it isn't.

However, There is a legal definition of what a human being is.

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

www.law.cornell.edu

(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

 

[TurtleDude]

From Associated Press

Justices signal they’ll OK new abortion limits, may toss Roe​

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Wednesday signaled it would uphold Mississippi’s 15-week ban on abortion and may go much further to overturn the nationwide right to abortion that has existed for nearly 50 years.

The fate of the court’s historic 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion throughout the United States and its 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed Roe, probably won’t be known until next June.

But after nearly two hours of arguments, all six conservative justices, including three appointed by former President Donald Trump, indicated they would uphold the Mississippi law.

At the very least, such a decision would undermine Roe and Casey, which allow states to regulate but not ban abortion up until the point of viability, at roughly 24 weeks.

And there was also substantial support among the conservative justices for getting rid of Roe and Casey altogether.

COMMENT:-

​

FORWARD to the past.​

​

I can't think of anything that the -Supreme- Republican Court of the United States of America could do that would be a bigger gift to the Democratic Party.​

I agree with you here

 

[cpwill]

That raises a good question: aside from the draft (which I'm against but at least is designed to protect a nation), where does the govt force adults to risk their lives against their will/without their consent? There is a much safer medical procedure if a woman doesnt want to remain pregnant...how is the govt entitled to refuse her that procedure? What legal basis is there to force that woman to risk her life, or even her health in many common and significant ways, when a safer alternative exists?

Abortion is 14 time safer than pregnancy​

​

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.​

​

Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.​

Abortion safer than giving birth: study

Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.

www.reuters.com

​

14 times is a significant risk and it's not always predictable and obviously, not always preventable. Does the govt have the right to force women to roll the dice when there's a safer option available?

Yes? Not going to war is FAR less dangerous than going to war; a fact that has hindered draft boards not in the least.

 

[Cassandra]

... Overturning Roe just returns that decision to the states. Alabama can ban them, Indiana can have a policy like what you propose, and California can have post-birth abortion, Gosnell style, with a pair of scissors to the back of the neck.

I think that's the wrong long term policy, mind you - I would prefer a national ban with very narrow exceptions where the life of the mother is actually at risk (which is vanishingly rare), but, overturning Roe won't achieve that.

I have a better idea. How about this: all men should be required to have a vasectomy and when or if they ever become responsible enough to become attentive partners and are ready for fatherhood, only then can they have the vasectomy reversed.