Updated: Roe v. Wade overturned

[aubiefifty 16,757]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

And who would be the one shaming anyone? I swear y’all are off your meds. If they have to file a report that doesn’t mean that they will be named publicly. I do not buy this logic at all. 

you mean that nut who told his own daughter if she was getting raped to just lie back and enjoy it.by the way is is a repuke running for office. he might have lost i do not remember. so with some of the crazies coming out of the woodwork people have a reason to be alarmed. and women who have been raped were attacked because of what they wore? and what about those that want the raped woman to carry to term and have the baby AND give her rapists parental rights? i asked my preacher friend about this and his answer was it is rare when any women get raped. i let it go because of fifty something years of friendship but he still threw the ones that do under the bus. so the first thing in my mind would be to take the quacks out of the equation. and people that are raped are outed all the time. rapists denying it and mentioning her name in the papers. leaks in fact a few rapists get off scott free because they really did not want to ruin a mans life because he made one mistake. think about that. what is the judge saying to the woman? to me he is saying you do not count lady. it does happen my friend. and all these folks claiming they know when a baby is a person or when it is not when they are not dr's or scientists. too many people let emotion override their thinking and throw out all kinds of crazy crap. remember the repub introducing a bill to outlaw ejaculation? true story. they claim he was not being serious and was trying to make a point. well i never got the point. what was the point? and why was it sexual? and i am not saying anyone is claiming this but the mother has every right to abort that baby if her life or health is threatened. i also would love to see these same folks drum up real support for these babies after they are born and are given away. we are number one in infant deaths in this country and number six in the nation with babies being born poor and not getting the proper help they need. there are all kinds of problems with these issues and throwing in crazy folks who do not care about anything but that baby while turning their back on all the others. people are going to die having abortions in this country when this changes and no one cares. and i am not going to get started on people who use abortion for birth control. and what about the folks having baby after baby so they can get that money and not have to work? i have seen youtube video's from women of all races telling how to game the system. there are just too many things to think about. i think the day after pills are the most humane but that and maybe in the guise of birth control will be under attack. so to me abortion is way more than allowing or stopping a pregnancy.

[GoAU 1,600]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

It is if you think the right to privacy - in this case, a women's right of autonomy over her own body - is an unenumerated constitutional right.

That's what is at stake.

Even RBG didn’t think Roe was the right venue to legislate abortion.  It’s not only a conservative view. 

[GoAU 1,600]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

Depends.

If one defines a fertilized egg (zygote) as "conception" there are several birth control methods including many drugs and natural herbs that could be considered as abortifacients.

Valid point.   I still think it is highly unlikely that things such as an IUD would be targeted, but they definitely aren’t going after all birth control.  Potential (but highly unlikely) some, but condoms, the pill, etc are as safe as they’ve ever been.  

[aubiefifty 16,757]

11 hours ago, GoAU said:

Valid point.   I still think it is highly unlikely that things such as an IUD would be targeted, but they definitely aren’t going after all birth control.  Potential (but highly unlikely) some, but condoms, the pill, etc are as safe as they’ve ever been.  

Mississippi Governor Won't Rule Out a Possible Ban on Birth Control If Roe Is Overturned

 

Julie Mazziotta

Mon, May 9, 2022, 3:05 PM

 

 

 

Governor Tate Reeves

Rogelio V. Solis-Pool/Getty Gov. Tate Reeves

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves declined to rule out a possible state ban on forms of birth control if Roe v. Wade is overturned, saying only that it's "not what we are focused on at this time."

During an interview on CNN's State of the Union to discuss Mississippi's potential next steps if the Supreme Court votes to strike down Roe, which established the right to abortion, Reeves, a Republican, confirmed that a trigger law put in place in 2007 would immediately outlaw abortions in the state.

Host Jake Tapper then asked Reeves if Mississippi might outlaw contraceptives such as Plan B, known as the morning after pill, or intrauterine devices (IUDs), and the governor sidestepped the question, saying that it wasn't a focus "at this time."

"My view is that the next phase of the pro-life movement is focusing on helping those moms that maybe have an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy," Reeves said Sunday. "And while I'm sure there will be conversations around America regarding [contraceptives], it's not something that we have spent a lot of time focused on."

RELATED: Abortions Are Still Legal in the U.S. — but Here's What Would Happen If Roe Is Overturned

Tapper had asked Reeves about contraception because in neighboring Louisiana, members of the state legislature have advanced a bill that would make abortion a homicide, and the wording allows for people with IUDs to be penalized.

"They're talking about not only criminally charging girls and women who get abortions as committing homicide, but they're also talking about defining the moment of conception as fertilization, which would theoretically … mean if you use an IUD [intrauterine device], you are committing murder," Tapper said.

RELATED VIDEO: 'I Pray for All ... Who Will Suffer': Many Stars Are Outraged at Sweeping Alabama Abortion Ban

Reeves said that Mississippi's current focus is on how abortion laws will change if Roe falls, as it likely will next month. Last week, a draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito indicated that a majority on the Supreme Court will vote to overturn the right to abortion granted by Roe.

"We're focused on looking at — see[ing] what the court allows for," Reeves said. "The bill that is before the court is a 15-week [abortion] ban. We believe that the overturning of Roe is the correct decision by the court. And so, in Mississippi, we don't have laws on the books that would lead to arresting individuals or anything along those lines."

Reeves also said that he thinks "life begins at conception."

RELATED: Sen. Tina Smith Says Overturning Roe Is 'So Out of Step with Where Americans Are' on Abortion Rights

Mississippi's current trigger law would ban abortions in the state, with exceptions only for cases of rape or if the abortion-seeker's life is at stake. There are no exceptions for cases of incest.

Other Republican governors, like Alabama's Kay Ivey, reacted to the Supreme Court leak by vowing to also ban abortion if Roe falls. Alabama also has a trigger law, and Ivey said that her "prayer is that Roe v. Wade is overturned and that life prevails."

Meanwhile, Democratic governors like California's Gavin Newsom, Maine's Janet Mills, New York's Kathy Hochul and North Carolina's Roy Cooper, among others, have reiterated that abortion will remain legal in their states.

The U.S. Senate will also vote on Wednesday on the Women's Health Protection Act, which the House has already approved and would codify Roe into a nationwide law. But Democrats do not have enough votes to pass the legislation, with moderate Republicans like Maine's Susan Collins saying she would vote against it, and it is expected to fail.

[GoAU 1,600]

The article, or one very similar has been posted and my comments around it remain unchanged.  
 

 

[aubiefifty 16,757]

9 minutes ago, GoAU said:

The article, or one very similar has been posted and my comments around it remain unchanged.  
 

 

i believe tejas is going to try to do the same thing. i just wanted to show you as it might or might not be unlikely some of these folks are hell bent on getting it passed.

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

On 5/6/2022 at 5:03 PM, AUDub said:

Homosexual sex itself was criminal. This is the problem that Lawrence v. Texas resolved. 

Yes. 

We have a Constitution for a reason. 

1.  Homosexual sex being illegal in the 1920s or 1950s isn't the same as any state "outlawing" gay marriage in 2022.  It's a bogus comparison.  You two really think any state would make same-sex marriage illegal?  As in, arrest and fine or imprison someone for holding a same-sex marriage the way people were sometimes arrested and jailed for being caught having gay sex back then?  Or are we just talking about—as I said—refusing to recognize a same-sex marriage as a legal marriage?

2.  When and where?  I was unaware that one had ever been passed when citizens got to vote on the issue.

3.  Yes we do.  That reason is that our system was designed to be a constitutional representative republic in which citizens didn't vote on many issues directly, but elected representatives to vote for them and the constitution is supposed to be the highest authority in the country, far higher than popularity.  It's accurate to use a form of the word "democracy" as an adjective to describe that system, as in, "The US system is a relatively democratic form of government," but the insistence of people on the left of using it as a noun—which is a usage that is not very accurate IMO—I think is deliberate. 

I believe that you were the one posting upthread, for example, that abortion has 70% approval from the public.  So what?  That has nothing to do with whether it's constitutional or not.  That statistic a completely irrelevant detail in the context of this debate, but the insistence on calling our country a democracy implies that it is relevant and should sway the debate somehow.

I personally cannot fathom how anyone reads the 14th amendment and comes away from it having concluded that a "right" exists to have an abortion.  I've never seen anyone explain it, either.  If you can connect those dots, please do; I will have learned the answer to a question that I have been asking about for around four decades.

It sure looks to me in Roe V. Wade like the court simply ruled on an issue based solely on popularity and just made up a legal justification for it.  I'm sure that manufactured legal justification was based on other court cases that also did violence to the 14th amendment, but ultimately they named the 14th amendment as the constitutional basis for the ruling.

Back to your statement, "We have a constitution for a reason."  We do.  It's supposed to stop things like that from happening.

 

[homersapien 11,363]

On 5/9/2022 at 9:19 PM, GoAU said:

Even RBG didn’t think Roe was the right venue to legislate abortion.  It’s not only a conservative view. 

That doesn't affect what I said.

(And it's not "venue" it's "case".)

RBG based her statements critiquing the basis of Roe on the politics. She felt a different case would have made for a more enduring decision (and apparently she may have been right).

Regardless,  she was a firm believer in a woman's right to choose, which pretty much mirrors my position.

I'm away from my  computer for now, so I will cite her later.

(Of course you can do the research yourself.)

Edited May 24, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,363]

On 5/9/2022 at 9:24 PM, GoAU said:

Valid point.   I still think it is highly unlikely that things such as an IUD would be targeted, but they definitely aren’t going after all birth control.  Potential (but highly unlikely) some, but condoms, the pill, etc are as safe as they’ve ever been.  

Yeah, and I thought overturning a woman's  basic right of privacy (autonomy) was "highly unlikely" to be rescinded.

[jj3jordan 2,051]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, and I thought overturning a woman's  basic right of privacy (autonomy) was "highly unlikely" to be rescinded.

She still has her right to privacy (autonomy), her choice. Nobody took that away.  It that she wants ANOTHER choice after making a bad one. All the while not granting the same consideration to her baby. Seems fair to me. It is hard for babies to vote for their own life but I'm pretty sure the vast majority or babies in the womb would love the chance to actually live, not get dismembered and sucked into a sink. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

She still has her right to privacy (autonomy), her choice. Nobody took that away.  It that she wants ANOTHER choice after making a bad one. All the while not granting the same consideration to her baby. Seems fair to me. It is hard for babies to vote for their own life but I'm pretty sure the vast majority or babies in the womb would love the chance to actually live, not get dismembered and sucked into a sink. 

Will you support the social initiatives it will require?  Is your sense of humanity genuine?

[jj3jordan 2,051]

6 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Will you support the social initiatives it will require?  Is your sense of humanity genuine?

Yes assuming I know what social initiatives you are talking about.  Nothing that exists now would be anything me or any other pro life person would cut.  Nobody wants a young mother to suffer. More needs to be done regarding the father and family to assist as they have a stake.  I don't see creating new entitlements being necessary.

Also, the dem/left has a philosophy that raising a baby as a single parent is impossible without their help. Truthfully that is a bit insulting to the millions of women who did NOT murder their baby but instead successfully raised their children without becoming a permanent burden to anybody else. Self reliance and acceptance of responsibility need to be emphasized.  

I just find it terribly disturbing that people who claim to be empathetic to all races and their historical plights are fiercely defending the procedure that literally was mainstreamed by Margaret Sanger who's stated goal was extermination of the black race. That is/was PP stated goal by it's founder. The vast majority of abortions are black babies. How on earth does anybody support that?  And..the party fighting against it is the republicans; you know, the party that you and your cohorts loudly proclaim to be racists.  Logic is missing.

DEMS= Codify killing black babies in the womb.

REPS= Outlaw killing black babies in the womb.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

Yes assuming I know what social initiatives you are talking about.  Nothing that exists now would be anything me or any other pro life person would cut.  Nobody wants a young mother to suffer. More needs to be done regarding the father and family to assist as they have a stake.  I don't see creating new entitlements being necessary.

Also, the dem/left has a philosophy that raising a baby as a single parent is impossible without their help. Truthfully that is a bit insulting to the millions of women who did NOT murder their baby but instead successfully raised their children without becoming a permanent burden to anybody else. Self reliance and acceptance of responsibility need to be emphasized.  

I just find it terribly disturbing that people who claim to be empathetic to all races and their historical plights are fiercely defending the procedure that literally was mainstreamed by Margaret Sanger who's stated goal was extermination of the black race. That is/was PP stated goal by it's founder. The vast majority of abortions are black babies. How on earth does anybody support that?  And..the party fighting against it is the republicans; you know, the party that you and your cohorts loudly proclaim to be racists.  Logic is missing.

DEMS= Codify killing black babies in the womb.

REPS= Outlaw killing black babies in the womb.

In my opinion, if you are not willing to support the social programs that unwanted children will ultimately require, you are not genuine.  There is no genuine regard for humanity in your position.

I know you prefer alternate "facts" but,

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/oct/05/ben-carson/did-margaret-sanger-believe-african-americans-shou/

https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2015/08/20/false-narratives-margaret-sanger-used-shame-black-women/

Please, stop spreading misinformation and lies.

[jj3jordan 2,051]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

In my opinion, if you are not willing to support the social programs that unwanted children will ultimately require, you are not genuine.  There is no genuine regard for humanity in your position.

I know you prefer alternate "facts" but,

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/oct/05/ben-carson/did-margaret-sanger-believe-african-americans-shou/

https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2015/08/20/false-narratives-margaret-sanger-used-shame-black-women/

Please, stop spreading misinformation and lies.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiMjPi6lvn3AhUMmOAKHRmjAnwQFnoECCMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2017%2Fapr%2F23%2Fmargaret-sanger-founded-planned-parenthood-on-raci%2F&usg=AOvVaw2bvVYZdYipWRLtBv772tIu
 

Makes her look solid if you leave out the important stuff. 

[GoAU 1,600]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

That doesn't affect what I said.

(And it's not "venue" it's "case".)

RBG based her statements critiquing the basis of Roe on the politics. She felt a different case would have made for a more enduring decision (and apparently she may have been right).

Regardless,  she was a firm believer in a woman's right to choose, which pretty much mirrors my position.

I'm away from my  computer for now, so I will cite her later.

(Of course you can do the research yourself.)

No need to quote, I'm familiar enough.  The point stands in that RvW was not on solid legal footing.  It shouldn't have been attempted to be legislated from the bench.  Her personal position is not relevant, her legal opinion is / was.  Regardless of anything, this will never be settled until the "when does life begin" argument is settled - which is likely never.  the counter to your "woman's right the choose" argument is how her rights are more valid than the baby's rights.  To be honest, I can clearly understand both sides.  The only hope of finding a "middle ground" would be something like heartbeat, brain activity, etc.   This is less likely to be decided anytime soon as both parties are moving in equally extreme directions.  For example, I agree that things like IUDs clearly should not be outlawed, but I also think that abortions in the second and especially third trimester is pure murder - that is a human life, no doubt about it.

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, and I thought overturning a woman's  basic right of privacy (autonomy) was "highly unlikely" to be rescinded.

Privacy =/= autonomy

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Why do people think that third trimester abortions occur for any other reason than an extreme medical one?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

3 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiMjPi6lvn3AhUMmOAKHRmjAnwQFnoECCMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2017%2Fapr%2F23%2Fmargaret-sanger-founded-planned-parenthood-on-raci%2F&usg=AOvVaw2bvVYZdYipWRLtBv772tIu
 

Makes her look solid if you leave out the important stuff. 

You posted a lie.  There is no minimizing, supporting.  It was false.

[jj3jordan 2,051]

36 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Why do people think that third trimester abortions occur for any other reason than an extreme medical one?

Because they do. Then the body parts are sold. They are more valuable for research if they are more fully formed.  The doctors/clinics try to make the procedure as late as possible without the mother wriggling off the hook.

 

 

[jj3jordan 2,051]

17 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

You posted a lie.  There is no minimizing, supporting.  It was false.

Not a lie. Revisionist history by abortion providers.

 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Just now, jj3jordan said:

Because they do. Then the body parts are sold. They are more valuable for research if they are more fully formed.  The doctors/clinics try to make the procedure as late as possible without the mother wriggling off the hook.

 

 

No.  That is not true.  Please, please stop posting lies.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 minute ago, jj3jordan said:

Not a lie. Revisionist history by abortion providers.

 

I will not argue with a liar.  Have your alternate facts.

[jj3jordan 2,051]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

I will not argue with a liar.  Have your alternate facts.

Is that all you do? Just call everybody that disagrees with you a liar?

[jj3jordan 2,051]

12 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

No.  That is not true.  Please, please stop posting lies.

Absolutely is true. Project veritas video proved it. Maybe you didn't see it. Please please please stop calling everybody with a different point of view a liar. Get over yourself.

[CoffeeTiger 5,099]

late, 3rd trimester abortions are less than 1% of total abortions performed and are almost universally done to save the mothers life or due to the fetuses inability to live outside the womb or due to serious birth defects. 

There is not an organ/body  harvesting industry for late term abortions in the U.S. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Absolutely is true. Project veritas video proved it. Maybe you didn't see it. Please please please stop calling everybody with a different point of view a liar. Get over yourself.

That is another lie.