[W: #624] Roe v Wade was a good decision until anti-abortion extremists overturned it , thanks to Trump

[watsup]

Due to Roe v Wade, those women who wanted an abortion could get one, and those who didn’t could maintain pregnancy. What is wrong with that? Women making their own decisions. For more:

“In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade recognized that the decision whether to continue or end a pregnancy belongs to the individual, not the government. Roe held that the specific guarantee of “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects individual privacy, includes the right to abortion prior to fetal viability.

After Roe, and up until its decision to overturn Roe in 2022, the Supreme Court repeatedly reaffirmed that the Constitution protects for abortion as an essential liberty, which is tied to other liberty rights to make personal decisions about family, relationships, and bodily autonomy.

In its 1973 decision Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court recognized that the right to liberty in the Constitution, which protects personal privacy, includes the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy. For the first time, Roe placed reproductive decision-making alongside other fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, by conferring it the highest degree of constitutional protection, known as “strict scrutiny.”

The Supreme Court required the state to justify any interference with the right to access abortion by showing that it had a “compelling interest,” and held that no interest was compelling enough to ban abortion before viability. After the point of viability, the state could ban abortion or take other steps to promote its interest in protecting the fetus. Even after that point, however, abortion must be permitted to protect a patient’s life and health.

In recognizing the right to abortion, Roe was consistent with earlier Supreme Court rulings recognizing a right of privacy that protects intimate and personal decisions—including those affecting child-rearing, marriage, procreation, and the use of contraception—from governmental interference. By guaranteeing the right to make decisions in pregnancy, Roe was critical to advancing gender equality in educational, economic, and political spheres.

At the time Roe was decided in 1973, nearly all states banned abortion, except in certain limited circumstances. Criminal abortion bans contributed to the death of scores of people who were unable to access safe, legal abortion. Under Roe, these bans were unconstitutional, making abortion legal, more accessible, and safer for many pregnant people throughout the country.

While Roe’s legal implications were enormous, even Roe could not make access a reality for everyone, and low-income people, people of color, young people, and others continued to face obstacles to abortion care.“

Roe v. Wade - Center for Reproductive Rights

The landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling recognizing the right to abortion.

reproductiverights.org

Then along comes Trump who made a POLITICAL decision (not a moral one) to gain political capital from the anti-extremist evangelists and their fellow travlers, extremist Catholics, by appointing anti-extremist jurors to the SC. Not only that, but every one of them lied to Congress by claiming that Roe was “settled law” but then overturning it at first opportunity. The result has been pure chaos, mostly affecting those at the bottom of the economic scale who do not have the financial means to travel out of state to get an abortion. Not only that, but the anti-abortion extremists want to further intrude into the personal rights and decisions of women by MONITORING THEIR MAIL to make sure that they are not receiving abortion medications.
Everything was working well under Foe v Wade until the fascist anti-abortion extremists gained too much power under Trump.

 

[Callen]

It will be payback day for women come November but whether it's enough to win remains to be seen.

 

[watsup]

It will be payback day for women come November but whether it's enough to win rema8hs to be seen.

Let us hope.

 

[Helix]

This is an interesting thread to read in 2024.

Chuck Schumer openly threatening Supreme Court Justices at abortion rally...

https://twitter.com/JerryDunleavy/status/1235289783502589956 “I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price!” - Chuck Schumer :shock: These people are truly bonkers.

debatepolitics.com

Also, :

In rare rebuke, Chief Justice Roberts slams Schumer for 'threatening' comments

In rare rebuke, Chief Justice Roberts slams Schumer for '''threatening''' comments Grand slam! Good for SCJ Roberts for straightening out and rebuking Schumer's outrageous comments. Who died and left him? Shame on Chuckie. He should be censured for making threatening comments! I didn't...

debatepolitics.com

Remember this when they tell you that Project 2025 isn't a Trump thing and that it won't happen if Republicans win.

 

[MamboDervish]

VOTE ON ROEVEMBER 5TH !!

 

[mrjurrs]

Due to Roe v Wade, those women who wanted an abortion could get one, and those who didn’t could maintain pregnancy. What is wrong with that? Women making their own decisions. For more:

“In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade recognized that the decision whether to continue or end a pregnancy belongs to the individual, not the government. Roe held that the specific guarantee of “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects individual privacy, includes the right to abortion prior to fetal viability.

After Roe, and up until its decision to overturn Roe in 2022, the Supreme Court repeatedly reaffirmed that the Constitution protects for abortion as an essential liberty, which is tied to other liberty rights to make personal decisions about family, relationships, and bodily autonomy.

In its 1973 decision Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court recognized that the right to liberty in the Constitution, which protects personal privacy, includes the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy. For the first time, Roe placed reproductive decision-making alongside other fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, by conferring it the highest degree of constitutional protection, known as “strict scrutiny.”

The Supreme Court required the state to justify any interference with the right to access abortion by showing that it had a “compelling interest,” and held that no interest was compelling enough to ban abortion before viability. After the point of viability, the state could ban abortion or take other steps to promote its interest in protecting the fetus. Even after that point, however, abortion must be permitted to protect a patient’s life and health.

In recognizing the right to abortion, Roe was consistent with earlier Supreme Court rulings recognizing a right of privacy that protects intimate and personal decisions—including those affecting child-rearing, marriage, procreation, and the use of contraception—from governmental interference. By guaranteeing the right to make decisions in pregnancy, Roe was critical to advancing gender equality in educational, economic, and political spheres.

At the time Roe was decided in 1973, nearly all states banned abortion, except in certain limited circumstances. Criminal abortion bans contributed to the death of scores of people who were unable to access safe, legal abortion. Under Roe, these bans were unconstitutional, making abortion legal, more accessible, and safer for many pregnant people throughout the country.

While Roe’s legal implications were enormous, even Roe could not make access a reality for everyone, and low-income people, people of color, young people, and others continued to face obstacles to abortion care.“

Roe v. Wade - Center for Reproductive Rights

The landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling recognizing the right to abortion.

reproductiverights.org

Then along comes Trump who made a POLITICAL decision (not a moral one) to gain political capital from the anti-extremist evangelists and their fellow travlers, extremist Catholics, by appointing anti-extremist jurors to the SC. Not only that, but every one of them lied to Congress by claiming that Roe was “settled law” but then overturning it at first opportunity. The result has been pure chaos, mostly affecting those at the bottom of the economic scale who do not have the financial means to travel out of state to get an abortion. Not only that, but the anti-abortion extremists want to further intrude into the personal rights and decisions of women by MONITORING THEIR MAIL to make sure that they are not receiving abortion medications.
Everything was working well under Foe v Wade until the fascist anti-abortion extremists gained too much power under Trump.

Roe only helped the poor access healthcare services until the Hyde Amendment.

"Starting in 1977, the Hyde Amendment has banned the use of any federal funds for abortion, only allowing exceptions to pay for terminating pregnancies that endanger the life of the woman, or that result from rape or incest."

The Hyde Amendment and Coverage for Abortion Services Under Medicaid in the Post-Roe Era | KFF

This brief details the federal programs that are affected by the Hyde Amendment and laws and regulations that have a similar goal, provides estimates on the share of women insured by Medicaid affected by the law, reviews the impact of the law on their access to abortion services, and discusses...

www.kff.org

 

[Ginger Ale]

Men, who love the women in their life.

 

[Lursa]

Roe only helped the poor access healthcare services until the Hyde Amendment.

"Starting in 1977, the Hyde Amendment has banned the use of any federal funds for abortion, only allowing exceptions to pay for terminating pregnancies that endanger the life of the woman, or that result from rape or incest."

The Hyde Amendment and Coverage for Abortion Services Under Medicaid in the Post-Roe Era | KFF

This brief details the federal programs that are affected by the Hyde Amendment and laws and regulations that have a similar goal, provides estimates on the share of women insured by Medicaid affected by the law, reviews the impact of the law on their access to abortion services, and discusses...

www.kff.org

True, but most still didnt have to spend more $ to travel out of state, pay for a motel, take more time off of work, etc. That all adds up and...it leads to women having later abortions...so greatly objected to...because they may have to save up the $.

 

[MamboDervish]

True, but most still didnt have to spend more $ to travel out of state, pay for a motel, take more time off of work, etc. That all adds up and...it leads to women having later abortions...so greatly objected to...because they may have to save up the $.

Or worse, borrow money for one. And the later the abortion, the riskier it is for the health of the poor woman.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Due to Roe v Wade, those women who wanted an abortion could get one, and those who didn’t could maintain pregnancy. What is wrong with that? Women making their own decisions. For more:

“In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade recognized that the decision whether to continue or end a pregnancy belongs to the individual, not the government. Roe held that the specific guarantee of “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects individual privacy, includes the right to abortion prior to fetal viability.

After Roe, and up until its decision to overturn Roe in 2022, the Supreme Court repeatedly reaffirmed that the Constitution protects for abortion as an essential liberty, which is tied to other liberty rights to make personal decisions about family, relationships, and bodily autonomy.

In its 1973 decision Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court recognized that the right to liberty in the Constitution, which protects personal privacy, includes the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy. For the first time, Roe placed reproductive decision-making alongside other fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, by conferring it the highest degree of constitutional protection, known as “strict scrutiny.”

The Supreme Court required the state to justify any interference with the right to access abortion by showing that it had a “compelling interest,” and held that no interest was compelling enough to ban abortion before viability. After the point of viability, the state could ban abortion or take other steps to promote its interest in protecting the fetus. Even after that point, however, abortion must be permitted to protect a patient’s life and health.

In recognizing the right to abortion, Roe was consistent with earlier Supreme Court rulings recognizing a right of privacy that protects intimate and personal decisions—including those affecting child-rearing, marriage, procreation, and the use of contraception—from governmental interference. By guaranteeing the right to make decisions in pregnancy, Roe was critical to advancing gender equality in educational, economic, and political spheres.

At the time Roe was decided in 1973, nearly all states banned abortion, except in certain limited circumstances. Criminal abortion bans contributed to the death of scores of people who were unable to access safe, legal abortion. Under Roe, these bans were unconstitutional, making abortion legal, more accessible, and safer for many pregnant people throughout the country.

While Roe’s legal implications were enormous, even Roe could not make access a reality for everyone, and low-income people, people of color, young people, and others continued to face obstacles to abortion care.“

Roe v. Wade - Center for Reproductive Rights

The landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling recognizing the right to abortion.

reproductiverights.org

Then along comes Trump who made a POLITICAL decision (not a moral one) to gain political capital from the anti-extremist evangelists and their fellow travlers, extremist Catholics, by appointing anti-extremist jurors to the SC. Not only that, but every one of them lied to Congress by claiming that Roe was “settled law” but then overturning it at first opportunity. The result has been pure chaos, mostly affecting those at the bottom of the economic scale who do not have the financial means to travel out of state to get an abortion. Not only that, but the anti-abortion extremists want to further intrude into the personal rights and decisions of women by MONITORING THEIR MAIL to make sure that they are not receiving abortion medications.
Everything was working well under Foe v Wade until the fascist anti-abortion extremists gained too much power under Trump.

What was good about, as a legal decision specifically?

 

[mrjurrs]

I disagree.
Artificial dates to make people feel okay about taking the decision away from the person that actually carries the fetus is a failed decision imo.

What laws that remove body sovereignty from males are copnstitutional?

 

[watsup]

What was good about, as a legal decision specifically?

Per the OP: Due to Roe v Wade, those women who wanted an abortion could get one, and those who didn’t could maintain pregnancy. What is wrong with that? Women making their own decisions

 

[MAGAnificent]

Due to Roe v Wade, those women who wanted an abortion could get one, and those who didn’t could maintain pregnancy. What is wrong with that? Women making their own decisions. For more:

“In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade recognized that the decision whether to continue or end a pregnancy belongs to the individual, not the government. Roe held that the specific guarantee of “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects individual privacy, includes the right to abortion prior to fetal viability.

After Roe, and up until its decision to overturn Roe in 2022, the Supreme Court repeatedly reaffirmed that the Constitution protects for abortion as an essential liberty, which is tied to other liberty rights to make personal decisions about family, relationships, and bodily autonomy.

In its 1973 decision Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court recognized that the right to liberty in the Constitution, which protects personal privacy, includes the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy. For the first time, Roe placed reproductive decision-making alongside other fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, by conferring it the highest degree of constitutional protection, known as “strict scrutiny.”

The Supreme Court required the state to justify any interference with the right to access abortion by showing that it had a “compelling interest,” and held that no interest was compelling enough to ban abortion before viability. After the point of viability, the state could ban abortion or take other steps to promote its interest in protecting the fetus. Even after that point, however, abortion must be permitted to protect a patient’s life and health.

In recognizing the right to abortion, Roe was consistent with earlier Supreme Court rulings recognizing a right of privacy that protects intimate and personal decisions—including those affecting child-rearing, marriage, procreation, and the use of contraception—from governmental interference. By guaranteeing the right to make decisions in pregnancy, Roe was critical to advancing gender equality in educational, economic, and political spheres.

At the time Roe was decided in 1973, nearly all states banned abortion, except in certain limited circumstances. Criminal abortion bans contributed to the death of scores of people who were unable to access safe, legal abortion. Under Roe, these bans were unconstitutional, making abortion legal, more accessible, and safer for many pregnant people throughout the country.

While Roe’s legal implications were enormous, even Roe could not make access a reality for everyone, and low-income people, people of color, young people, and others continued to face obstacles to abortion care.“

Roe v. Wade - Center for Reproductive Rights

The landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling recognizing the right to abortion.

reproductiverights.org

Then along comes Trump who made a POLITICAL decision (not a moral one) to gain political capital from the anti-extremist evangelists and their fellow travlers, extremist Catholics, by appointing anti-extremist jurors to the SC. Not only that, but every one of them lied to Congress by claiming that Roe was “settled law” but then overturning it at first opportunity. The result has been pure chaos, mostly affecting those at the bottom of the economic scale who do not have the financial means to travel out of state to get an abortion. Not only that, but the anti-abortion extremists want to further intrude into the personal rights and decisions of women by MONITORING THEIR MAIL to make sure that they are not receiving abortion medications.
Everything was working well under Foe v Wade until the fascist anti-abortion extremists gained too much power under Trump.

Overturning Roe V Wade was the right decision. Short of a constitutional amendment, the issue of abortion belongs with the individual states.

 

[MAGAnificent]

It will be payback day for women come November but whether it's enough to win remains to be seen.

Doubtful. Those women who are militantly pro-abortion tend not to vote republican anyway.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Per the OP: Due to Roe v Wade, those women who wanted an abortion could get one, and those who didn’t could maintain pregnancy. What is wrong with that? Women making their own decisions

So you're talking about the result and not the quality of their reasoning, i.e., the fact that 7 men in robes circumvented the democratic process to make a new law that previously did not exist. That's what I figured. I guess it was too much to hope that you'd be talking about the actual reasoning in the decision that led to the desired result. What's wrong with making our law through the democratic process?

Also, we obviously don't let people make whatever decisions they want to make. A woman could make her "own decision" to drown her baby in a bathtub. What's wrong with that?

 

[mrjurrs]

Per the OP: Due to Roe v Wade, those women who wanted an abortion could get one, and those who didn’t could maintain pregnancy. What is wrong with that? Women making their own decisions

It is wrong to put artificial deadlines on the person carrying the fetus imo.

 

[Noodlegawd]

It is wrong to put artificial deadlines on the person carrying the fetus imo.

What artificial deadline did Roe put on anything?

 

[weaver2]

What was good about, as a legal decision specifically?

Go back and read the first post. It's all there. Or, understand that Roe was an intelligent decision by watching rational Republicans, appalled at what red states have created, try to establish parameters on abortion that look remarkably like Roe.

 

[Lursa]

What was good about, as a legal decision specifically?

It created an enumerated 9th Amendment right for women to have a much safer medical procedure, which some states denied them.

The Const and SCOTUS, nor any federal court decision, do not recognize any rights for the unborn, so there was no legal foundation to deny women a much safer procedure when pregnancy/childbirth were a much higher risk to our right to life, and to our health and self-determination.

What is the legal foundation to deny women the safer procedure? Dobbs states " That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” link

When in our traditions and Nation's history have we denied safer medical treatment to persons? What about it disrupts the concept of ordered liberty? It does the opposite, it imposes restrictions on women's freedom to access a safer medical procedure.

This list of 9th A rights, pre-Dobbs, shows:

right to an abortion based on right to privacy[ii].​

right to make one’s own choice about having children/ right to reproductive autonomy/right to be free from compulsory sterilization[xi]​

The 2nd one still remains. So it should still be legal to have an elective abortion. Dobb's is bullshit.

References:

" Coffee and Weddington brought a lawsuit on McCorvey’s behalf (who went by the alias “Jane Roe” throughout the case to protect her identity) claiming that the state’s law violated Roe’s constitutional rights. The suit claimed that, while her life was not in danger, Roe had a right to obtain an abortion in a safe, medical environment within her home state." link​

--and--

"The State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient. This interest obviously extends at least to the performing physician and his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provision for any complication or emergency that might arise. The prevalence of high mortality rates at illegal "abortion mills" strengthens, rather than weakens, the State's interest in regulating the conditions under which abortions are performed." RvW​

 

[Callen]

Doubtful. Those women who are militantly pro-abortion tend not to vote republican anyway.

Trust me as a woman.......women who support a women's right to choose are not militantly pro abortion. Look what happened in Kansas and several other red states when abortion was put on the ballot. You watch FL and AZ this November the women's vote is going to be historic and trust me they won't all be Democrats.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Trust me as a woman.......women who support a women's right to choose are not militantly pro abortion. Look what happened in Kansas and several other red states when abortion was put on the ballot. You watch FL and AZ this November the women's vote is going to be historic and trust me they won't all be Democrats.

Perhaps historic in deep blue states. Everywhere else, not so much. I can pretty much gaurantee that my deeply red state will not go blue over the abortion issue. In my opinion, you are setting yourself up for a very big let down, after which you will have to accept that the abortion fight is now where it belongs.....with the individual states. Roe V Wade was going to be overturned at some point and now that it has....the chances of it getting revived are pretty nil, no matter who wins in November,.

 

[Callen]

Perhaps historic in deep blue states. Everywhere else, not so much. I can pretty much gaurantee that my deeply red state will not go blue over the abortion issue. In my opinion, you are setting yourself up for a very big let down, after which you will have to accept that the abortion fight is now where it belongs.....with the individual states. Roe V Wade was going to be overturned at some point and now that it has....the chances of it getting revived are pretty nil, no matter who wins in November,.

Nobody is saying a red state will go blue over the abortion issue , they won't. However, women are going to come out in record numbers and that is going to matter in the swing states. As I understand it, women are the most reliable voting block and women are unhappy over the strict limitations on a women's right to choose. Where abortion is on the ballot women turnout will be significant and could move the needle.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Nobody is saying a red state will go blue over the abortion issue , they won't. However, women are going to come out in record numbers and that is going to matter in the swing states. As I understand it, women are the most reliable voting block and women are unhappy over the strict limitations on a women's right to choose. Where abortion is on the ballot women turnout will be significant and could move the needle.

Wishful thinking on your part. I think most women are resigned to addressing the issue with the individual states.

 

[Callen]

Wishful thinking on your part. I think most women are resigned to addressing the issue with the individual states.

With all due respect...you don't get the fact that the State legislatures are the problem. Women can't trust them to protect their rights. Why do you think FL , AZ and other states want is on the ballot in November? women don't do "resigned" when it comes to their reproductive choices.

 

[Gordy327]

With all due respect...you don't get the fact that the State legislatures are the problem. Women can't trust them to protect their rights. Why do you think FL , AZ and other states want is on the ballot in November? women don't do "resigned" when it comes to their reproductive choices.

Some states are trying to make it harder to put abortion on their ballots or find ways to circumvent it. History has shown some states are quite poor when it comes to individual rights and autonomy. That's one reason why abortion should not be a state issue and why Roe was decided in the first place.