Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

[WorldWatcher]

A decision is different than a draft.

Do you think the vote count of the Justices will change between decision and draft?

WW

 

[j brown's body]

Suddenly precedent isn’t so important, yes?

This court has proved that over and over again.

 

[jmotivator]

Do you have issue?

... what? I think you need to reboot.

 

[choiceone]

Yes, this reveals what has been missing since the 1970s. Women like this can make the women's movement over again. About time.

 

[rahl]

The almighty creator!

which is who? Can you show it exists?

 

[eohrnberger]

And if it was one of the Justices? What if it was the Chief Justice himself?

I'd consider the probability of that as not in the least bit likely.

 

[Irredentist]

The decision isn't removed from woman.
Its being removed from the courts and instead placed in the hands of elected representatives.
Where it should be.

Women's private medical decisions should not be in the hands of legislators.

 

[roguenuke]

Still sticking to the starw man?

I used the word disease. Pregnancy isn't a disease.

Which would make that a strawman in itself. Pregnancy is a condition, and we treat conditions as we would a "disease".

Is gestational diabetes a "disease"?

 

[neil]

There are a lot of rights that were not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions. A right to interracial marriage is one. I shudder to think of everything that could be lost with that line of reasoning.

I don't think marriage was ever considered a crime with a victim.

 

[CaughtInThe]

WOMEN. STAND UP!!!!

 

[eohrnberger]

Court that rarely leaks does so now in biggest case in years

The Supreme Court is known for keeping secrets. Year after year, in major case after major case, there’s little beyond what the justices say during oral arguments that suggests how they will rule.

apnews.com

Its rare, but not unprecedented.

The rest of your post is hyperbole.

You mean accurate, don't you? It has been established in the public record, after all.

 

[jpevans]

I’m a little bit surprised that this came out before the midterms, but only a little bit. Ever since Trump won in 2016, this was essentially a fait accompli. The effort to ban abortion nationwide is of course next.

“The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wadedecision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.

The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.

www.politico.com

Moscow Mitch is beaming. He has worked tirelessly to not confirm liberal Judges & confirm conservative judges, but worse is stealing the two SC Justices who tipped the scales to defy 70% of Americans who supported Roe V Wade.

 

[Rexedgar]

... what? I think you need to reboot.

Tell me you don’t know what “issue” is without telling me……

 

[roguenuke]

Far better than keeping 4th, 9th, and 14th amendments in the fiction aisle where they’ve been for the last 50 years.

All those support the individual's rights to an abortion, far above states' rights to restrict such medical treatment.

 

[Athanasius68]

Women's private medical decisions should not be in the hands of legislators.

They already are-- even under Roe of Casey they are.
Even in European countries they are.

 

[GummyVitamins]

No it isn't. If you can force a woman to carry a pregnancy...a man can also be forced to get a vasectomy or to provide child support from conception.

You just proved it being a bad analogy by completely misinterpreting his post. Thanks for that.

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[Josie]

Women's private medical decisions should not be in the hands of legislators.

Correct. Unless those private medical decisions include harming another human.

 

[GummyVitamins]

That killer has the right to refuse to provide their resources to the person they intentionally harmed, even after their death.

So does the victim.

 

[tres borrachos]

No different for either party.

In 1993 Democrats had the brilliant idea to ban "assault weapons". They got slaughtered in the mid terms. When the majority of one party's base supports something that the VAST majority of the opposition party opposes, acting on it is suicide. Just like this would be.

Great analogy, and I couldn't agree more.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Women's private medical decisions should not be in the hands of legislators.

"Private medical decisions" are in the hands of legislatures all the time. There's plenty of old medical procedures that are now banned by law.

 

[jmotivator]

Suddenly precedent isn’t so important, yes?

Every time the left tried that argument all you neede dto do was point out the various long standing precedents that were struck down by later courts.

Plessy v Ferguson lasted nearly 60 years.

 

[roguenuke]

So does the victim.

This doesn't make any sense at all. Yes, the victim would have that choice. In connection to my analogy, there would be no equivalent reciprocal right because the fetus doesn't provide their body to sustain the mother.

 

[j brown's body]

What’s a woman?

States writing laws arbitrarily defining when life begins will have no trouble defining what a woman is.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You mean accurate, don't you? It has been established in the public record, after all.

No, I mean hyperbole.

At best all you are doing is rehashing a criticism that conservatives are usually guilty of.