Well, As Expected SCOTUS HAS Struck Down Roe

choiceone · May 4, 2022

Lursa said:
What a stupid, hysterical "Chicken Little" dishonest post. A document has been leaked, not an official decision.

Why start another thread on this? There are already several, the inflammatory hysteria isnt constructive.

Disagree. This is an extremely useful leak.

Whatever the actual decision turns out to be, this will make many women and men go ballistic over this issue on both sides. They are going to have to ask themselves seriously whether they can afford to vote on any other issue, including money, when such fundamental rights are involved, regardless of the side.

That this will give a very big boost to candidates who support abortion rights means the mid-term outcomes may be affected, especially if enough people experience hysteria early enough to be well-organized fall voters.

tosca1 · May 4, 2022

lurchadams said:
At least I'm not supporting tyranny and do your own ****ing research. But even before you do, you know I'm right - it might be 66% or 69%, but it's a majority. Your on board with the tyrants. How proud you must be of yourself.

Why does majority numbers mean the few ones are on board with..................... "tyrants?"
You're not making any sense!

More likely the 60% have been relying too much on fake news TV!

lurchadams · May 4, 2022

tosca1 said:
Why does majority numbers mean the few ones are on board with..................... "tyrants?"
You're not making any sense!

More likely the 60% have been relying too much on fake news TV!

To impose the will of the minority on the minority is not democracy, its the taliban.

lurchadams · May 4, 2022

NotreDame said:
What is stunning is not only the lack of any modicum of an intelligent response above but the embracing of it above!

The sophists in Ancient Greece would love you, as they were advocates for the play of words over logic. They’d love your use “slavery” although it doesn’t fit anything I’ve said, your loaded questions, not so much your personal attacks as they, unlike you, had limits as to how far the illogical reasoning can go.

Okay, I’ll play your say something irrational, use ad hominem game.

Here it goes. It’s your advocacy of oligarchy as the rule of law “all over again” like ancient times, like in the Soviet Union, as you find palatable a small number of unelected people (in an elected, representative government with law making to Congress) make the law up for the rest of us, the text of the written law, the Constitution, be damned. You must be a Russian Putin bot, endorsing a controlled oligarch at SCOTUS who only issues decisions consistent with your beliefs. “Z” to you Putin bot.

Oh, the loaded question segment. Okay.

You’re obviously okay with bestiality aren’t you, as you had sex with a 🐿?

Now, the above IS hyperbole, a mirroring of how you’ve reasoned, not statements of facts about you.

tl:dr. To impose the will of the minority on the majority is tyranny, plain and simple.

lurchadams · May 4, 2022

NotreDame said:
The “flowery speech” are your posts! Your posts are devoid of any focus upon facts and evidence of what the Constitution says. Rather, your posts are inundated with ad hominems, poor reasoning, and use of dysphemisms such as taliban and authoritarian.

My god, ostensibly the only thing separating you from crazed Q-Anon conspiracy theorists is their irrational conspiracies are off the radar of sanity exit far right, and your irrational conspiracy theory is off the radar of sanity exit far left.

I'm totally focused on facts.

Fact: 70% of Americans want abortion to remain safe and legal. That's the only fact I need. Enjoy your short-lived right-wing victory vilifying women.

tosca1 · May 4, 2022

lurchadams said:
To impose the will of the minority on the minority is not democracy, its the taliban.

You must mean imposing the will of the minority on the majority......

If majority would want to commit genocide - let's say as an example, get rid of a group of people - that is democracy?
Democracy isn't as simple as that. It depends on your system on how you do it.

Furthermore, you're relying on.................................................... pollsters.

The polls numbers aren't so simple either:

If Roe is overturned: A January CNN poll found a 59% majority want their state to have laws that are “more permissive than restrictive” on abortion if Roe goes away, while only 20% want their state to ban abortion entirely (another 20% want it to be restricted but not banned).

Strongest support for abortion—within limits: An Associated Press/NORC poll in June found 87% support abortion when the woman’s life is in danger, 84% support exceptions in the case of rape or incest, and 74% support abortion if the child would be born with a life-threatening illness.

When abortion support drops: The further into the pregnancy, with AP/NORC finding 61% believe abortion should be legal during the first trimester, but only 34% in the second trimester and 19% in the third, and an April Wall Street Journal poll finding more Americans approve of 15-week abortion bans than disapprove.

How Americans Really Feel About Abortion: The Sometimes Surprising Poll Results As DNC Gets Underway

An overwhelming majority of voters want the procedure to remain legal, as it becomes a major issue in the election.

www.forbes.com

Pollsters can be wrong.

lurchadams · May 4, 2022

tosca1 said:
You must mean imposing the will of the minority on the majority......

If majority would want to commit genocide - let's say as an example, get rid of a group of people - that is democracy?
Democracy isn't as simple as that. It depends on your system on how you do it.

Furthermore, you're relying on.................................................... pollsters.
Pollsters can be wrong.

The majority is NOT going to want to commit genocide. Nice analogy(straw man). Enjoy your attack on women's health care.

trouble13 · May 4, 2022

lurchadams said:
The decision has been leaked. This is the continuation of the authoritarian, Republican culture war. Elite Republicans against everyone else. I've said many times, Republican or Democrat, if you have the money and you want an abortion, you're going to get one.

Making little girls carry their incest and rape babies to term? Lets see how that goes. I believe this is the "push" Democrats need to maintain the houses. Women, even conservative women aren't going to put up with this, IMO.

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

I didn't expect it. It came as a surprise to me.

lurchadams · May 4, 2022

trouble13 said:
I didn't expect it. It came as a surprise to me.

Well, there was foreshadowing with the oral arguments coming from Alito last November. Many did expect this.

trouble13 · May 4, 2022

lurchadams said:
Well, there was foreshadowing with the oral arguments coming from Alito last November. Many did expect this.

I didn't think Roberts or Kavanaugh would vote to overturn RvW

roguenuke · May 4, 2022

Checkerboard Strangler said:
There will be Roe friendly states and non-Roe friendly states for a while.
The unfriendly ones have no doubt got it in their heads that they can bully Roe states into obeying their demands, and without a doubt
they will attempt to bully their own residents into obeying state law OUTSIDE OF that state.
Naturally that will lead to another constitutional crisis with far reaching implications no matter how it is resolved or handled.

We are drifting farther and farther apart into two separate nations with every poisoned SCOTUS ruling.
It will also be interesting first time a state like, say perhaps Texas, tells California how to go about their affairs and California telling Texas to go fork themselves. No doubt that will be repeated amongst the several opposing states for quite a while.

For now, my state is Roe friendly, surprisingly in fact. I will work to keep it that way.

NotreDame · May 4, 2022

Lursa said:
It applies to bodily autonomy and security of the person:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Example: McFall vs Shimp

The question posed by the Plaintiff is that, in order to save the life of one of its members by the only means available, may society infringe upon one's absolute right to his "bodily security"?

The common law has consistently held to a rule which provides that one human being is under no legal compulsion to give aid or to take action to save that human being or to rescue. A great deal has been written regarding this rule which, on the surface, appears to be revolting in a moral sense. Introspection, however, will demonstrate that the rule is founded upon the very essence of our free society. It is noteworthy that counsel for the Plaintiff has cited authority which has developed in other societies in support of the Plaintiff's request in this instance. Our society, contrary to many others, has as its first principle, the respect for the individual, and that society and government exist to protect the individual from being invaded and hurt by another. Many societies adopt a contrary view which has the the individual existing to serve the society as a whole.

In preserving such a society as we have, it is bound to happen that great moral conflicts will arise and will appear harsh in a given instance. In this case, the chancellor is being asked to force one member of society to undergo a medical procedure which would provide that part of that individual's body would be removed from him and given to another so that the other could live. Morally, this decision rests with the Defendant, and, in the view of the Court, the refusal of the Defendant is morally indefensible. For our law to COMPEL the Defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change the very concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn.

link

But the decision was not rooted in the 4th amendment or based on the 4th amendment, there’s no mention of the 4th amendment at all, and was a Pennsylvania state court decision. The 4th amendment has a very limited “bodily autonomy” and it is limited to government agents physically seizing the person and/or seizing them and then searching their person.

The 9th amendment is the proper amendment for the broader “bodily autonomy” you reference.

NotreDame · May 4, 2022

Lursa said:
There are strong arguments for this, definitely, as you stated.

RvW specifically decided that states may not ban the safer medical procedure of elective abortion. The procedure was safer than pregnancy/childbirth and so they decided that women had the right to choose the safer procedure.

I ask people what, specifically, is unconstitutional about RvW?

Why shouldnt the right to an abortion be protected? They also referred to the 9th in the RvW decision. It's no different than a right to have consensual sex, a right to reproduce, or a right to travel from state to state. It's accorded to the people unless there are reasons to restrict or ban it. (hint: so no one 'invents' it...they just protect it unless there are reasons not to)
RvW decided that the states may not deny women a safe medical procedure if they choose it. It is much much safer than pregnancy/childbirth

What has manifested is exactly the fears the Federalists expressed, an enumeration of certain rights has led people to believe the reservoir of rights aren’t protected or do not exist.

I do find law professor Randy Barnett’s approach in the law review article I linked to be a strong argument and methodology.

Davin · May 4, 2022

aociswundumho said:
That law does not punish women who cross state lines to get an abortion. It is perfectly legal in Texas for a woman to go out of state to get an abortion.

States are already looking to do so:

Missouri lawmaker wants to make it a crime to help people get abortions out of state

Republican state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman’s proposed amendments would make it a crime to transport someone to receive an abortion, help pay for the procedure or instruct the person on ways to end a pregnancy. Abortion rights advocates say the measures are part of a larger trend of lawmakers...

news.stlpublicradio.org

Just like conservatives lied when they said they weren’t seeking total abortion bans now they are lying saying they won’t punish people that seek abortions across state lines.

lurchadams · May 4, 2022

trouble13 said:
I didn't think Roberts or Kavanaugh would vote to overturn RvW

Roberts according to "talking head" reporting I've seen is pretty unhappy about the direction his SCOTUS has taken on this. Kav's nothing but an evil, right-wing thug, like Thomas.

maquiscat · May 4, 2022

lurchadams said:
No. Leave me alone.

Then I am with that other poster. Given all I saw, the law is not saying what you claim. From what I read, a non-Texan can bring suit over an abortion that occurs in Texas, but there is nothing to be done for abortions that occur outside of Texas. There is no penalty for going to another state to get an abortion.

maquiscat · May 4, 2022

VanceMack said:
My position is as it was then.

I've never said otherwise, save that we now see that "settled law" is nothing of the sort. At best we can have "settled for now law".

aociswundumho · May 4, 2022

Davin said:
States are already looking to do so:

Missouri lawmaker wants to make it a crime to help people get abortions out of state

Republican state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman’s proposed amendments would make it a crime to transport someone to receive an abortion, help pay for the procedure or instruct the person on ways to end a pregnancy. Abortion rights advocates say the measures are part of a larger trend of lawmakers...

news.stlpublicradio.org

Just like conservatives lied when they said they weren’t seeking total abortion bans now they are lying saying they won’t punish people that seek abortions across state lines.

Read the link you posted and quote the text where it says pregnant women will be punished for crossing state lines to have an abortion.

VanceMack · May 4, 2022

maquiscat said:
I've never said otherwise, save that we now see that "settled law" is nothing of the sort. At best we can have "settled for now law".

Well...and in fairness...the same scenario occurred the numerous times and ways the gay community challenged 'settled law' until they got settle law overturned in their favor.

Thats something people need to understand...you cant just fight for law changes until you get what you want, then be pissed that opposition parties do the same.

tres borrachos · May 4, 2022

AZRWinger said:
Too late. A civil war has been underway since Trump won the Presidency.

True. The idiotic Trump supporters even declared war on their own party, and want to hang Mike Pence.

tres borrachos · May 4, 2022

Davin said:
States are already looking to do so:

Missouri lawmaker wants to make it a crime to help people get abortions out of state

Republican state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman’s proposed amendments would make it a crime to transport someone to receive an abortion, help pay for the procedure or instruct the person on ways to end a pregnancy. Abortion rights advocates say the measures are part of a larger trend of lawmakers...

news.stlpublicradio.org

Just like conservatives lied when they said they weren’t seeking total abortion bans now they are lying saying they won’t punish people that seek abortions across state lines.

She's nuts.

Lloyd Christmas · May 4, 2022

Lursa said:
What a stupid, hysterical "Chicken Little" dishonest post. A document has been leaked, not an official decision.

Why start another thread on this? There are already several, the inflammatory hysteria isnt constructive.

NO, what is stupid is your pathetic attempt to deflect from the fact this is Taliban bullshit and this is what scumbag republican terrorists wanted. YOur bullshit non argument is what is not constructive

lurchadams said:
Prohibiting abortion. Forced pregnancy. It's your advocation of slavery all over again. You're obviously ok with slavery, aren't you? Republicans suck. We're done here. Enjoy your attack on women.

Yup, taliban terrorists. And they are such cowards they can't even own it, they try to bullshit and lie their way around the fact that everybody else knows they are complete assholes

Checkerboard Strangler · May 4, 2022

roguenuke said:
For now, my state is Roe friendly, surprisingly in fact. I will work to keep it that way.

Every time I hear disturbing news out of Nawth Cah-lahna, I remind myself that it's the fictional home of Sheriff Andy.
I grew up with friends in my Bethesda MD neighborhood whose families were rooted in NC.

The refreshing thing that I have noticed about a fair number of NC liberals is that they don't look, act or sound
like the perpetually angry-never satisfied strident armband wearing tantrum throwing dorks we've seen running around in the fringes
in many other places.
Liberalism in NC seems to be a quiet, even respectful thing.
You can also see the same thing in some folks in Tennessee, like Dolly Parton, for instance.

As long as folks down there remember the importance of harmony, balance and mutual respect (at least grudgingly) I think North Carolina
will be okay. Maybe we can figure out how to "imprint" some of that and share it somehow with the rest of the country.
Then, I think the country might wind up okay.

HikerGuy83 · May 4, 2022

lurchadams said:
The decision has been leaked. This is the continuation of the authoritarian, Republican culture war. Elite Republicans against everyone else. I've said many times, Republican or Democrat, if you have the money and you want an abortion, you're going to get one.

Making little girls carry their incest and rape babies to term? Lets see how that goes. I believe this is the "push" Democrats need to maintain the houses. Women, even conservative women aren't going to put up with this, IMO.

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

Well, now we can get on with our lives.

Most states will legalize it and things will continue.

The earth will not move out of it's orbit.

lurchadams · May 4, 2022

HikerGuy83 said:
Well, now we can get on with our lives.

Most states will legalize it and things will continue.

The earth will not move out of it's orbit.

You have no idea what you're talking about. How this will impact women, especially poor women who can't afford to travel out of their Taliban run state.

You really have no idea how horrible this ruling is for women.

Well, As Expected SCOTUS HAS Struck Down Roe

Zoom Warrior

Zoom Warrior

Zoom Warrior

Zoom Warrior

Zoom Warrior

And our hearts forever, love thee Notre Dame.

Amendment IV​

And our hearts forever, love thee Notre Dame.

Zoom Warrior

Maquis Admiral

Maquis Admiral

Capitalist Pig

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

HoHoHo

HoHoHo

deepfreezefilms.bsky.social

Zoom Warrior

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Amendment IV