SCOTUS officially announced overturning Roe v Wade, ending bodily autonomy for all women in this country

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

35733

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 35733 Posts

The U.S. Supreme Court officially reversed Roe v. Wade on Friday, declaring that the constitutional right to abortion upheld for nearly a half century, no longer exists.

Writing for the court majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that the 1973 Roe ruling and repeated subsequent high court decisions reaffirming Roe "must be overruled" because they were "egregiously wrong," the arguments "exceptionally weak" and so "damaging" that they amounted to "an abuse of judicial authority."

The decision, most of which was leaked in early May, means that abortion rights will be rolled back in nearly half of the states immediately, with more restrictions likely to follow. For all practical purposes, abortion will not be available in large swaths of the country. The decision may well mean too that the court itself, as well as the abortion question, will become a focal point in the upcoming fall elections and in the fall and thereafter.

Joining the Alito opinion were Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by the first President Bush, and the three Trump appointees — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Chief Justice Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush, concurred in the judgment only, and would have limited the decision to upholding the Mississippi law at issue in the case, which banned abortions after 15 weeks.

Dissenting were Justices Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama.

"With sorrow — for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection — we dissent," they wrote.

Alito's opinion is a tour de force of the various criticisms of Roe that have long existed in academia

Indeed, the 78-page opinion, which has a 30-page appendix, seemingly leaves no authority uncited as support for the proposition that there is no inherent right to privacy or personal autonomy in various provisions of the Constitution — and similarly, no evidence that peoples' reliance on the court's abortion precedents over the past half century should matter.

Alito pointed for instance, to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that upheld the central holding of Roe and was written by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, all Republican appointees to the court. Alito pointed to language in the Casey opinion that he said "conceded" reliance interests were not really implicated because contraception could prevent almost all unplanned pregnancies.

In fact, though, that 1992 opinion went on to dismiss that very argument as "unrealistic," because it "refuse[s] to face the fact" that for decades "people have organized intimate relationships and made choices ... in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail." Not exactly the concession that Alito described.

It is not unusual for justices to cherry pick quotes but not so out of context and not from former colleagues who are still alive and privately, not amused at all.

In the end, though, Alito's opinion has a larger objective, perhaps multiple objectives.

Writing for the majority, he said forthrightly that abortion is a matter to be decided by states and the voters in the states. "We hold," he wrote, that "the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion." As to what standard the courts should apply in the event that a state regulation is challenged, Alito said any state regulation of abortion is presumptively valid and "must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought" it was serving "legitimate state interests," including "respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development." In addition, he noted, states are entitled to regulate abortion to eliminate "gruesome and barbaric" medical procedures; to "preserve the integrity of the medical profession"; and to prevent discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability, including barring abortion in cases of fetal abnormality.

Ultimately, the translation of all that is that states appear to be completely free to ban abortions for any reason.

Near the end of the opinion, Alito sought to allay fears about the wide-ranging nature of his opinion. "To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion. "

But in his concurrent opinion, Justice Thomas said the legal rationale for Friday's decision could be applied to overturn other major cases, including those that legalized gay marriage.

"For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," he wrote. "Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous.'"

The court's liberals noted that Thomas's language cast doubts on Alito's majority opinion that said the court's decision did not mean that cases like Obergefell would be affected.

"The first problem with the majority's account comes from Justice Thomas's concurrence—which makes clear he is not with the program," they wrote. "In saying that nothing in today's opinion casts doubt on non-abortion precedents, Justice Thomas explains, he means only that they are not at issue in this very case."

The next steps on abortion across the country would play out in a variety of ways, almost all of them resulting in abortion bans.

Several states — among them Mississippi, North Carolina, and Wisconsin — still have decades-old abortion bans on their books; with Roe overturned, those states could revert to a pre-Roe environment. Officials in such states could seek to enforce old laws, or ask the courts to reinstate them. For example, a Michigan law dating back to 1931 would make abortion a felony. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, has been working to try to block that law.

A cascade of newly active state laws

Another path to banning abortion involves "trigger bans," newer laws pushed through by anti-abortion rights legislators in many states in anticipation of the Supreme Court's action. Some 15 states – in the South, West and Midwest – have such laws in place, according to CRR and Guttmacher, but they fall into different categories.

Some states will act quickly to ban abortion. According to a new analysis by the Guttmacher Institute, South Dakota, Kentucky and Louisiana have laws in place that lawmakers designed explicitly to take effect immediately upon the fall of the Roe precedent. Idaho, Tennessee, and Texas – where most abortions are already illegal after about six weeks of pregnancy – have similar laws, which would take effect after 30 days. Guttmacher says seven other "trigger ban" states have laws that would require state officials such as governors or attorneys general to take action to implement them.

Sue Liebel, state policy director with the anti-abortion rights group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said she expects officials in many of those Republican-controlled states to take swift action to do so.

"We have been talking to all of those about acting immediately," Liebel told NPR. "So when that happens, let's be ready. How do you get that back into play?"

In recent years, many states also have passed gestational bans prohibiting abortion at various stages of pregnancy. Courts have blocked many of those laws in response to legal challenges, including laws in Georgia, Ohio, and Idaho that ban abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. Now those laws may take effect immediately. So too, could a law recently enacted in Oklahoma, that makes performing abortion a felony punishable by time in prison.

"It will be a tremendous change in an incredibly short period of time," said Julie Rikelman, senior director of litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights. Rikelman argued the Center's challenge to Mississippi's abortion ban at Supreme Court this term.

A host of other restrictions could limit where, by whom, and under what conditions abortion can be provided. Some examples include laws requiring parental notification or consent for abortions involving patients who are minors; and other health regulations for doctors and clinics that many medical groups say are unnecessary, expensive, and difficult to comply with.

Finally, Liebel said some governors may consider calling special sessions to pass new legislation in response to Friday's ruling.

More legal uncertainty

Legal experts say the court's decision will pose new questions for other courts to deal with – questions about how to apply the specific language of the final ruling to individual state laws.

If Roe is indeed overturned or substantially rolled back, Rikelman, the Center for Reproductive rights attorney, predicts "legal chaos" in states across the country in the immediate aftermath of the decision.

"I think what we will see is far more litigation in the federal courts – not less litigation," Rikelman said.

Some states such as Texas and Oklahoma have multiple abortion restrictions on the books, raising potential questions about which ones would be valid. Those laws each include different provisions and carry different penalties, adding to the potential confusion and prompting additional litigation in state and federal courts.

Liebel, with SBA Pro-Life America, acknowledged that more legal battles are likely.

"That's gonna take us back, frankly, to where we always have been. Each side tries to put their big toe right on that line and push the envelope," Liebel said.

Battles in state courts are also likely. Some state constitutions may offer protections for abortion rights notwithstanding the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In Florida, for example, the American Civil Liberties Union and other reproductive rights groups are challenging a 15-week abortion ban modeled on Mississippi's law, on the grounds that it violates privacy rights protections guaranteed in Florida's state constitution.

Even without overturning Roe, Rikelman points to the Texas law known as S.B. 8, which took effect in September. The law, which has spawned several copycat proposals in other states, including Oklahoma, relies on individuals filing civil lawsuits to enforce an abortion ban.

Interstate enforcement battles

Abortion bans in restrictive states will likely bleed over to states that protect abortion rights as well, Rikelman said. She notes that some state lawmakers are trying to prohibit people in other states from providing abortions to their residents.

"What we are seeing already are states and state legislators impacting even people's ability to access abortion in places where it would remain legal," she said.

For example, an omnibus abortion law passed by a Republican supermajority in Kentucky earlier this year includes a host of new requirements for dispensing medication abortion pills, and a provision for extraditing people from other states who illegally provide abortion pills to Kentuckians. It's unclear how enforceable those types of laws would be.

Meanwhile, some states are trying to expand access to abortion in preparation for more patients traveling from restrictive states for procedures. Connecticut lawmakers passed legislation this year designed to protect abortion providers from out-of-state lawsuits.

"This just raises a whole host of issues," Rikelman said. "All of those different disputes will have to be worked out in the courts" including, potentially, in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Even as abortions have now become far more restricted overall, the Guttmacher Institute reports that the long-term decline in abortions has reversed. In 2020, there were 930,160 abortions in the U.S., an increase of 8 percent more abortions than in 2017. The Institute also said that at the same time, fewer people were getting pregnant and among those who did, a larger proportion chose to have an abortion.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/24/1102305878/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade-decision-overturn

It's officially done. There's going to be a lot of consequences to this ruling, and I personally fully expect to see far right wingers going after various forms of birth control next, but more immediately this will trigger bans in twenty six states immediately, leaving less than half of the country with access to abortion and more women will die seeking access to back alley abortions. Furthermore, for women who end up with more mouths to feed we will inevitably see numbers of people living in, and stuck in, poverty grow over the coming years. This is a really sad ****ing day all around.

I never again want to hear anyone say anything similar to the phrase, "Oh that's just red meat for the base, but it will never happen." People who want things to happen are sincerely fighting for it, and mean what they say.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

126584

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 126584 Posts

How many states are banning abortion in cases with ectopic pregnancy?

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

35733

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 35733 Posts

@horgen said:

How many states are banning abortion in cases with ectopic pregnancy?

I don't know the answer to that question.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

19724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 19724 Posts

Man, Republicans sure love dropping the QOL and HDI of USA lol. Every single study on this shows this can only be bad.

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
blaznwiipspman1

13206

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By blaznwiipspman1
Member since 2007 • 13206 Posts

Ooff..well its good this was finally done. It's truly a historical day. In one light it's good, while another not so good. Either way, this is now been put to rest.

In the end though, it doesn't change much. More than half the states allow you to have abortions. Even employers are giving you travel abortion benefits. If someone wants to get it done, thus law really changes nothing.

Now the real question is, when will they pass gun control laws? The right shows they care about unborn, but what about the toddlers getting shot up by AR15s?

Avatar image for dabear
dabear

6099

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#6 dabear
Member since 2002 • 6099 Posts

@Serraph105: Regardless of your opinion on abortion, SCOTUS made the right call here. SCOTUS in 1973 made law (not their right), because the justices issued a ruling on what they thought was "in the spirit of the Constitution" and not what the Constitution actually says. That has always left Roe V Wade open for challenge.

There is no "right to privacy" clause in the US Constitution (but, there should be).

This situation can be remedied by an Amendment. Or, I believe congressional law can grant that right (via the 14th Amendment).

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

35733

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 35733 Posts

@dabear said:

@Serraph105: Regardless of your opinion on abortion, SCOTUS made the right call here. SCOTUS in 1973 made law (not their right), because the justices issued a ruling on what they thought was "in the spirit of the Constitution" and not what the Constitution actually says. That has always left Roe V Wade open for challenge.

There is no "right to privacy" clause in the US Constitution (but, there should be).

This situation can be remedied by an Amendment. Or, I believe congressional law can grant that right (via the 14th Amendment).

The scotus made the wrong call. There is no right to privacy, there is literally no right to anything, unless people choose to fight for it and make it so. Choosing to fight against positive things and keep them from happening or to return us to a point where they no longer exist is the wrong call.

Avatar image for Pedro
Pedro

60564

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 72

User Lists: 0

#8 Pedro
Member since 2002 • 60564 Posts

Time to start removing rights via rulings or making rights constitutional.

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
blaznwiipspman1

13206

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 blaznwiipspman1
Member since 2007 • 13206 Posts

@Pedro said:

Time to start removing rights via rulings or making rights constitutional.

cheezus...must be a blue moon to see SW crew here in political gamers.

Avatar image for dabear
dabear

6099

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#10 dabear
Member since 2002 • 6099 Posts

@Serraph105 said:
@dabear said:

@Serraph105: Regardless of your opinion on abortion, SCOTUS made the right call here. SCOTUS in 1973 made law (not their right), because the justices issued a ruling on what they thought was "in the spirit of the Constitution" and not what the Constitution actually says. That has always left Roe V Wade open for challenge.

There is no "right to privacy" clause in the US Constitution (but, there should be).

This situation can be remedied by an Amendment. Or, I believe congressional law can grant that right (via the 14th Amendment).

The scotus made the wrong call. There is no right to privacy, there is literally no right to anything, unless people choose to fight for it and make it so. Choosing to fight against positive things and keep them from happening or to return us to a point where they no longer exist is the wrong call.

We have rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution. If the citizenry wants more protected rights, there is a process for that - and Amendment.

So, go fight for an Amendment.

Avatar image for rmpumper
rmpumper

1713

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 rmpumper
Member since 2016 • 1713 Posts

@dabear said:

We have rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution. If the citizenry wants more protected rights, there is a process for that - and Amendment.

So, go fight for an Amendment.

There's already an amendment to fight the tyrannical government, but the gun nuts are the ones who love tyranny. Funny how that works out.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

19724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 19724 Posts

Same-Sex Marriage, Contraception Should Be Next: Clarence Thomas - Rolling Stone

lmao wtf?

Fucking insane.

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

35733

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 35733 Posts

@dabear said:
@Serraph105 said:
@dabear said:

@Serraph105: Regardless of your opinion on abortion, SCOTUS made the right call here. SCOTUS in 1973 made law (not their right), because the justices issued a ruling on what they thought was "in the spirit of the Constitution" and not what the Constitution actually says. That has always left Roe V Wade open for challenge.

There is no "right to privacy" clause in the US Constitution (but, there should be).

This situation can be remedied by an Amendment. Or, I believe congressional law can grant that right (via the 14th Amendment).

The scotus made the wrong call. There is no right to privacy, there is literally no right to anything, unless people choose to fight for it and make it so. Choosing to fight against positive things and keep them from happening or to return us to a point where they no longer exist is the wrong call.

We have rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution. If the citizenry wants more protected rights, there is a process for that - and Amendment.

So, go fight for an Amendment.

I understand the process. You surely understand that my argument doesn't revolve around the process, but around what is actually right and wrong, correct?

I'm arguing that what the scotus did today is wrong and you are wrapping your arms around the process as opposed to what is right and wrong, to defend them. As if the process of how we get what's right is really what matters here. The process itself is so incredibly broken that getting back what is right will very likely be impossible and until that nigh impossible feat is achieved (if indeed it ever is), the people will have to suffer truly horrible consequences for many decades to come.

Avatar image for Pedro
Pedro

60564

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 72

User Lists: 0

#14 Pedro
Member since 2002 • 60564 Posts

@blaznwiipspman1: Big issues trigger change in behavior 😎

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

19724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 19724 Posts
@Serraph105 said:
@dabear said:
@Serraph105 said:
@dabear said:

@Serraph105: Regardless of your opinion on abortion, SCOTUS made the right call here. SCOTUS in 1973 made law (not their right), because the justices issued a ruling on what they thought was "in the spirit of the Constitution" and not what the Constitution actually says. That has always left Roe V Wade open for challenge.

There is no "right to privacy" clause in the US Constitution (but, there should be).

This situation can be remedied by an Amendment. Or, I believe congressional law can grant that right (via the 14th Amendment).

The scotus made the wrong call. There is no right to privacy, there is literally no right to anything, unless people choose to fight for it and make it so. Choosing to fight against positive things and keep them from happening or to return us to a point where they no longer exist is the wrong call.

We have rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution. If the citizenry wants more protected rights, there is a process for that - and Amendment.

So, go fight for an Amendment.

I understand the process. You surely understand that my argument doesn't revolve around the process, but around what is actually right and wrong, correct?

I'm arguing that what the scotus did today is wrong and you are wrapping your arms around the process as opposed to what is right and wrong, to defend them. As if the process of how we get what's right is really what matters here. The process itself is so incredibly broken that getting back what is right will very likely be impossible and until that nigh impossible feat is achieved (if indeed it ever is), the people will have to suffer truly horrible consequences for many decades to come.

A side note: Your analysis on this being "wrong" is objectively correct going by every single study on abortion.

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

35733

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 35733 Posts

@zaryia said:
@Serraph105 said:
@dabear said:
@Serraph105 said:
@dabear said:

@Serraph105: Regardless of your opinion on abortion, SCOTUS made the right call here. SCOTUS in 1973 made law (not their right), because the justices issued a ruling on what they thought was "in the spirit of the Constitution" and not what the Constitution actually says. That has always left Roe V Wade open for challenge.

There is no "right to privacy" clause in the US Constitution (but, there should be).

This situation can be remedied by an Amendment. Or, I believe congressional law can grant that right (via the 14th Amendment).

The scotus made the wrong call. There is no right to privacy, there is literally no right to anything, unless people choose to fight for it and make it so. Choosing to fight against positive things and keep them from happening or to return us to a point where they no longer exist is the wrong call.

We have rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution. If the citizenry wants more protected rights, there is a process for that - and Amendment.

So, go fight for an Amendment.

I understand the process. You surely understand that my argument doesn't revolve around the process, but around what is actually right and wrong, correct?

I'm arguing that what the scotus did today is wrong and you are wrapping your arms around the process as opposed to what is right and wrong, to defend them. As if the process of how we get what's right is really what matters here. The process itself is so incredibly broken that getting back what is right will very likely be impossible and until that nigh impossible feat is achieved (if indeed it ever is), the people will have to suffer truly horrible consequences for many decades to come.

A note: Your analysis on right and wrong is objectively correct going by every single study on abortion.

Yup. It's not going to matter to dabear, but yup.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

19724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 19724 Posts
@Serraph105 said:
@zaryia said:
@Serraph105 said:
@dabear said:

We have rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution. If the citizenry wants more protected rights, there is a process for that - and Amendment.

So, go fight for an Amendment.

I understand the process. You surely understand that my argument doesn't revolve around the process, but around what is actually right and wrong, correct?

I'm arguing that what the scotus did today is wrong and you are wrapping your arms around the process as opposed to what is right and wrong, to defend them. As if the process of how we get what's right is really what matters here. The process itself is so incredibly broken that getting back what is right will very likely be impossible and until that nigh impossible feat is achieved (if indeed it ever is), the people will have to suffer truly horrible consequences for many decades to come.

A note: Your analysis on right and wrong is objectively correct going by every single study on abortion.

Yup. It's not going to matter to dabear, but yup.

And on the opposite end of the spectrum DaBear's analysis is entirely subjective and can change on a whim. Hence this literally being called legal opinion. Even one Kavanaugh said it was settled law and precedent, until he didn't. Entirely political and feely feels.

We're dealing with facts vs feelings.

Avatar image for Pedro
Pedro

60564

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 72

User Lists: 0

#18 Pedro
Member since 2002 • 60564 Posts

@zaryia: Feelings are fickled and have a tendency to ignore facts. This makes decisions based on feelings dangerous. We have seen the severe cost of that over the past 6 years.

Avatar image for zmanbarzel
ZmanBarzel

3068

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#19 ZmanBarzel
Member since 2014 • 3068 Posts

The United States can't end soon enough. Days like today are why Memorial Day and Fourth of July are just days.

Avatar image for pyro1245
pyro1245

8757

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#20 pyro1245
Member since 2003 • 8757 Posts

This is very bad for so many reasons.

but hey at least you good with god smh

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

19724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 19724 Posts

I wonder why Clarence left out "Loving v. Virginia" from his shitty opinion?

Avatar image for dabear
dabear

6099

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#22 dabear
Member since 2002 • 6099 Posts

@Serraph105: What SCOTUS did was correctly interpret whether or not a law/ruling is Constitutional. That is their job, their only job.

Avatar image for dabear
dabear

6099

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#23 dabear
Member since 2002 • 6099 Posts

@zaryia: Subjective... how? Can you point to me where in the Constitution says we have a right to privacy?

Avatar image for JimB
JimB

3581

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#24 JimB
Member since 2002 • 3581 Posts

@zmanbarzel said:

The United States can't end soon enough. Days like today are why Memorial Day and Fourth of July are just days.

There is no law stating you have to live in the United States. I suggest you make use of your freedom and leave the United States.

Avatar image for zmanbarzel
ZmanBarzel

3068

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#25 ZmanBarzel
Member since 2014 • 3068 Posts

@JimB: Believe me, I'm researching.

Avatar image for sheevpalpamemes
SheevPalpamemes

2076

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#26 SheevPalpamemes
Member since 2020 • 2076 Posts

Even though i agree with the ruling, it’s going to be a mess.

Avatar image for sargentd
SargentD

4335

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#27 SargentD
Member since 2020 • 4335 Posts

Babies are considered individuals again and it went back to states rights to decide the line. Will be interesting to see if Congress attempts to actually create any federal legislation on abortion or sit on their hands instead.

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

35733

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 35733 Posts

@dabear said:

@Serraph105: What SCOTUS did was correctly interpret whether or not a law/ruling is Constitutional. That is their job, their only job.

Their interpretation has zero legal consequences for themselves, which is why it literally doesn't matter. They will never lose their jobs or be subjected to impeachment. The SCOTUS does whatever it wants, comes up with an argument to support their stance, and continues on regardless of what happens. That's why the process truly doesn't matter for them or to anyone else who gets their majority of judges put in place.

Whether you mean to be or not, you are using "the process", which doesn't matter to the SCOTUS, as your reason to support the SCOTUS. I personally believe you are using it to support what you secretly want, and don't care to see it changed, but either way you are doing exactly what I just stated.

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
blaznwiipspman1

13206

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29  Edited By blaznwiipspman1
Member since 2007 • 13206 Posts

@zmanbarzel: jeez lol. It's called united STATES of america. What one state chooses to do has absolutely nothing to do with the state you live in. Calm down. Here in New York, this roe v wade thing means less than a shit stain on a toilet.

If you live in Alabama, and don't like it, then move to a different state. Theres tons of nice ones out there

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

126584

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#30 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 126584 Posts

@zaryia said:

I wonder why Clarence left out "Loving v. Virginia" from his shitty opinion?

Attack his own marriage?

Avatar image for goldenelementxl
GoldenElementXL

8508

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31  Edited By GoldenElementXL
Member since 2016 • 8508 Posts
@zmanbarzel said:

@JimB: Believe me, I'm researching.

Once you do, you'll realize the US isn't so bad...

This SCOTUS decision is a bad one. The political party that is against entitlement spending and "handouts" is going to be responsible for the need for MUCH more entitlement spending over the next few decades. All because they're trying to act like they're "good" Christians...

Avatar image for sargentd
SargentD

4335

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#32 SargentD
Member since 2020 • 4335 Posts

Clarence Thomas overturned roe the day after his Birthday lol

Avatar image for dabear
dabear

6099

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#33 dabear
Member since 2002 • 6099 Posts

@Serraph105: No, just do not like or accept when branches of the government exceed their authority, regardless of whether or not I agree with the reasoning. A good example of this is when the judicial branch struck down many of Trump's executive orders - Trump was not a king, and he grossly exceeded his authority. It didn't matter to me that I am for strengthening our borders, the law is the law.

It is not in the judicial branch of our government's authority to make law. That is what SCOTUS did in 1973, and it was correctly overturned.

Avatar image for sargentd
SargentD

4335

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#34 SargentD
Member since 2020 • 4335 Posts

@blaznwiipspman1: true. This just goes back to states rights. CA and NY can still have their 9 month abortions, some states will limit to 12 weeks 15 weeks, some will be none. If people want it it to be federal or constitutional right Congress will need to make the argument to make it happen. But they are pretty lazy so I wouldn't bank on it.

Avatar image for zmanbarzel
ZmanBarzel

3068

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#35 ZmanBarzel
Member since 2014 • 3068 Posts

@blaznwiipspman1 said:

@zmanbarzel: jeez lol. It's called united STATES of america. What one state chooses to do has absolutely nothing to do with the state you live in. Calm down. Here in New York, this roe v wade thing means less than a shit stain on a toilet.

If you live in Alabama, and don't like it, then move to a different state. Theres tons of nice ones out there

Except that the United States is broken from its very foundation. A state with 879,000 residents (South Dakota) should not have the same power to determine the fate of legislation in the Senate as one with 39 million residents (California). With minor effort, such as gerrymandering districts, gaming the system becomes not just possible but inevitable.

The U.S. is a 3rd-world country that just happens to have a 1st-world oligarchy.

Avatar image for OmegaBlueUp
OmegaBlueUp

269

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#36 OmegaBlueUp
Member since 2006 • 269 Posts

@zaryia: Of the studies showing this is a bad decision do any factor in the value of the fetus's life? I would think not because the value of a life is subjective and cannot be measured, but I would be curious if they tried.

I understand that studies show there is an increase of unsafe abortions done in places where it is illegal, but it is similar to saying we can't outlaw pot or those people will go to meth (hypothetical example I don't know of people actually saying that). It is choosing the lesser of two evils instead of trying to get rid of the evils.

I would hope states that do outlaw abortion find ways to provide support to those that would normally be seeking abortions. Ideally they would do that before outlawing it, but that doesn't look like the case.

Avatar image for sargentd
SargentD

4335

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#37 SargentD
Member since 2020 • 4335 Posts

Gamespot makes a front page political article on the subject against the Scotus decision. But turns off comments.

Cowards

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

21998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 21998 Posts

@Serraph105: Shapiro is priming the pump today.

Avatar image for SUD123456
SUD123456

6532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39  Edited By SUD123456
Member since 2007 • 6532 Posts

American Taliban.

Also,Thomas wants to make decisions for women over their bodies, but doesn't have guts to tell his wife to STFU in trying to overturn an election.

Avatar image for davillain
DaVillain

51543

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#40 DaVillain  Moderator
Member since 2014 • 51543 Posts

@Serraph105 said:
@dabear said:

@Serraph105: Regardless of your opinion on abortion, SCOTUS made the right call here. SCOTUS in 1973 made law (not their right), because the justices issued a ruling on what they thought was "in the spirit of the Constitution" and not what the Constitution actually says. That has always left Roe V Wade open for challenge.

There is no "right to privacy" clause in the US Constitution (but, there should be).

This situation can be remedied by an Amendment. Or, I believe congressional law can grant that right (via the 14th Amendment).

The scotus made the wrong call. There is no right to privacy, there is literally no right to anything, unless people choose to fight for it and make it so. Choosing to fight against positive things and keep them from happening or to return us to a point where they no longer exist is the wrong call.

This will not end well, not looking forward to the protests and whatever they push next. But however, abortion is not banned in this country. The states will now determine what happens next so at least there's still hope.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

21998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 21998 Posts

@SUD123456: Oh, there's no doubt he supports those efforts.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

126584

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#42 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 126584 Posts

@OmegaBlueUp said:

@zaryia: Of the studies showing this is a bad decision do any factor in the value of the fetus's life? I would think not because the value of a life is subjective and cannot be measured, but I would be curious if they tried.

I understand that studies show there is an increase of unsafe abortions done in places where it is illegal, but it is similar to saying we can't outlaw pot or those people will go to meth (hypothetical example I don't know of people actually saying that). It is choosing the lesser of two evils instead of trying to get rid of the evils.

I would hope states that do outlaw abortion find ways to provide support to those that would normally be seeking abortions. Ideally they would do that before outlawing it, but that doesn't look like the case.

Better with a life in misery than dead?

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
br0kenrabbit

17515

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#43 br0kenrabbit  Online
Member since 2004 • 17515 Posts

Well, this is gonna wake up the democratic voters.

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

35733

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44  Edited By Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 35733 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

@SUD123456: Oh, there's no doubt he supports those efforts.

Yup, fascism at pretty much every level of government is back in style.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

21998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 21998 Posts

@br0kenrabbit said:

Well, this is gonna wake up the democratic voters.

It's likely too late for the court. Barring some unforseen consequences, it's makeup is set for a generation and it just gave itself license to roll back a whole raft of conservative-loathed decisions.

Avatar image for Solaryellow
Solaryellow

6736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 Solaryellow
Member since 2013 • 6736 Posts

@sargentd said:

Gamespot makes a front page political article on the subject against the Scotus decision. But turns off comments.

Cowards

but but but.......if you want to donate.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
br0kenrabbit

17515

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#47 br0kenrabbit  Online
Member since 2004 • 17515 Posts

@mattbbpl said:
@br0kenrabbit said:

Well, this is gonna wake up the democratic voters.

It's likely too late for the court. Barring some unforseen consequences, it's makeup is set for a generation and it just gave itself license to roll back a whole raft of conservative-loathed decisions.

If all the democratic-leaning voters actually voted for once we could have enough statehouses to pass Constitutional amendments.

The problem with democratic voters, as always, is getting them to the polls.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14676

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14676 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

@SUD123456: Oh, there's no doubt he supports those efforts.

The majority opinion paves the way for more religious restrictions on freedoms if the far right deems it so. Birth control, sodomy, gay marriage, etc.

It's a shame that red states that pass abortions' bans will now create an even worse negative feedback loop of pain and suffering as a consequence here.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
br0kenrabbit

17515

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#49 br0kenrabbit  Online
Member since 2004 • 17515 Posts

Also, I've read that DA's in democratic cities have said they will refuse to prosecute. There's a term for that, nullification by...or something, can't remember, just woke up.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14676

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14676 Posts

Terrible decision, terrible opinion, written by a terrible SC justice and person. Alito's originalist take is fairly absurd arguing that stuff has to be explicitly enumerated to be a right, then tries to justify the draconian stances on this issue by referencing a history and past that never existed. All crosshairs will be on birth control next, then gay marriage, then sodomy, laws, etc.

They will come for all of it. Maybe an outcry will happen the moment they charge a woman for murder due to miscarriage in the south.