Updated: Roe v. Wade overturned

[AUDub 11,136]

47 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

But it’s damn funny watching the hypocrisy come out in full force. 

It's damn funny watching you pat yourself on the back for your intellectual laziness. 

[TexasTiger 12,826]

5 minutes ago, AUDub said:

It's damn funny watching you pat yourself on the back for your intellectual laziness. 

And his own hypocrisy.

[GoAU 1,599]

Given that we’ve had 50 years since Rowe, and concern from both sides about the merit of the  case, I can’t think of why our elected officials haven’t made any attempt to codify it.  
 

Leaving my personal beliefs aside, let’s assume most people feel the correct answer for abortion is somewhere between “no abotions at all”  and third trimester/ partial birth abortions?  
 

instead, the nation is left swinging back and forth and no one is happy - a significant understatement.  
 

Assume we can draw the line at a heartbeat or brain formation- would that satisfy most?   That handles those that have errors in judgment, poor planning, failed contraception, rape and most other reasons.   For medical conditions putting the mothers life at risk, or severe birth defects beyond this period would require medical review by 2 or more doctors.  I think this sort of compromise would be reasonable and although the extremists on both side would be left without complete satisfaction, it could certainly be seen as an improvement.  
 

The obvious downsides are that some states that allow completely unrestricted abortion at any time would feel a restriction and other states that have basically banned abortion would feel they are giving up state rights.   
 

Would most find this acceptable?   Just curious about whether a compromise has any chance at all?

[TexasTiger 12,826]

47 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Given that we’ve had 50 years since Rowe, and concern from both sides about the merit of the  case, I can’t think of why our elected officials haven’t made any attempt to codify it.  
 

Leaving my personal beliefs aside, let’s assume most people feel the correct answer for abortion is somewhere between “no abotions at all”  and third trimester/ partial birth abortions?  
 

instead, the nation is left swinging back and forth and no one is happy - a significant understatement.  
 

Assume we can draw the line at a heartbeat or brain formation- would that satisfy most?   That handles those that have errors in judgment, poor planning, failed contraception, rape and most other reasons.   For medical conditions putting the mothers life at risk, or severe birth defects beyond this period would require medical review by 2 or more doctors.  I think this sort of compromise would be reasonable and although the extremists on both side would be left without complete satisfaction, it could certainly be seen as an improvement.  
 

The obvious downsides are that some states that allow completely unrestricted abortion at any time would feel a restriction and other states that have basically banned abortion would feel they are giving up state rights.   
 

Would most find this acceptable?   Just curious about whether a compromise has any chance at all?

I think compromise is essential on such a divisive issue.

[homersapien 11,357]

2 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

I want to know why y’all are so upset about one’s own body and a right to privacy now, but at the same time so upset with people that didn’t want to get a Covid shot because.,..well shouldn’t we be entitled to a right to privacy when it comes to our own body. 
 

I don’t think they should have overturned it. Things to me were fine just the way they were and not an issue I think we should be spending so much time on. But it’s damn funny watching the hypocrisy come out in full force. 

Right, because that's such a good analogy. 

Forcing a woman to have a baby against her interests is exactly like criticizing people for choosing to not getting vaccinated.

What an idiotic post.

 

Edited June 25, 2022 by homersapien

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 hours ago, AU9377 said:

This is the nuance, for lack of a better word.  The right to have an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy was based on the fundamental right to privacy.  The fundamental right was the right to privacy, not the right to have an abortion.

The court has now decided that the right to privacy does not include the right to have an abortion.  The right to privacy is still considered to be a fundamental right in this country.

I think you’re mistaken. The US Solicitor General, during oral argument, was specifically asked what the actual right was. Listen to her response (start at 1:26:00).

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You’re apparently applying a standard fundamental rights analysis. The fundamental right doesn’t only begin to exist when the Court recognizes it. By recognizing it, the Court is declaring it’s a fundamental right that existed prior to the Constitution and must be treated as such.

I wonder if the Court will ever “recognize” the constitutional right to bigamy, incest, bestiality, and whatever other future rights that could be floating in the ether. Rest assured, five justices draped in black robes are at the steering wheel. We should just do away with the amendment clause; it’s too inconvenient.

[homersapien 11,357]

42 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I think you’re mistaken. The US Solicitor General, during oral argument, was specifically asked what the actual right was. Listen to her response (start at 1:26:00).

 

Well that was a weak response by the Solicitor IMO.

But, I think AU9377 was referring to the original Roe ruling:

 On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy", which protects a pregnant woman's right to an abortion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

 

That's what has been overturned.

Edited June 25, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,357]

4 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I wonder if the Court will ever “recognize” the constitutional right to bigamy, incest, bestiality, and whatever other future rights that could be floating in the ether. Rest assured, five justices draped in black robes are at the steering wheel. We should just do away with the amendment clause; it’s too inconvenient.

That worries me a whole lot less than the SCOTUS refusing to recognize other inherent rights, such as using contraception or the ability to marry who you choose (for example).

I used to assume conservatives opposed excessive government control in our lives on principle.  Apparently, I was wrong.

Or maybe most of the self-identified conservatives today aren't really "conservative" at all but something else altogether.

Edited June 26, 2022 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 12,826]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I wonder if the Court will ever “recognize” the constitutional right to bigamy, incest, bestiality, and whatever other future rights that could be floating in the ether. Rest assured, five justices draped in black robes are at the steering wheel. We should just do away with the amendment clause; it’s too inconvenient.

I cited common law precedent. You’re citing right wing talking points. Keeping  your legal training on ice or is it on display? 😉

[DKW 86 7,418]

7 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Self portrait? 😉

Of course not, and i told you you should stop posting altogether... ;-)

 

[TexasTiger 12,826]

18 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Of course not, and i told you you should stop posting altogether... 😉

 

Just shows how much weight I place on your comments. 😉

[wdefromtx 3,159]

4 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

And his own hypocrisy.

How so?

[TexasTiger 12,826]

57 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

How so?

Maybe better to say you don’t appear to grasp the concept.

[AUDub 11,136]

12 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

There are just some people that enjoy any reason to run around with their hair on fire...

What this does is effectively limits abortion to those with means.

Being poor sucks. A lot of folks are effectively anchored and don't have the time or money to go out of state for a medical procedure.

So what will they most likely do? It's possible a black market will spring back up, much as it was before Roe v. Wade. 

[SaltyTiger 7,774]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

What this does is effectively limits abortion to those with means.

Being poor sucks. A lot of folks are effectively anchored and don't have the time or money to go out of state for a medical procedure.

So what will they most likely do? It's possible a black market will spring back up, much as it was before Roe v. Wade. 

Absolutely right Dub. But if you are sincerely anti abortion nothing will change that. No thought given to the drawbacks you mention.

Some good stuff here today by a few.

[AUDub 11,136]

55 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Absolutely right Dub. But if you are sincerely anti abortion nothing will change that. No thought given to the drawbacks you mention.

Some good stuff here today by a few.

People that are actually "anti-abortion" take steps that will actually reduce abortion, not put desperate women in a postion where a coathanger is appealing. 

[DKW 86 7,418]

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

I never said I don't believe in God.  I just don't believe in your God.

And this isn't about "nuances", it's about weaseling and not owning your statements. 

 

[DKW 86 7,418]

23 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I understand the frustration, but this outcome is the direct result of Republican voters doing what Democratic voters are too lazy and lacking in vision to accomplish.  Legislation requires either a super majority or compromise and often both. It is unrealistic to expect a President to achieve legislative progress on issues important to him/her if they do not have some degree of cooperation in the legislative branches of government.  Obama achieved his number one goal.  He got something done with health care.  It isn't perfect and it is the result of compromise and full of pot holes, but it is movement. 

The Republicans have been consistently vigilant with respect to gaining control of the Court.  The Republicans in the Senate chose not to even grant a hearing for Obama's pick for the Supreme Court.  Obama nominated a moderate justice when he nominated Garland.  The Republicans didn't care who it was, he wasn't getting a hearing.  That is gutter politics at its finest.  If voters refuse to make Republicans pay a price for acting in that manner, they are endorsing that behavior.

Republicans voted for their candidate regardless of the stench.  They were focused on shaping the court.  They accomplished that goal.

Had those voters that I mentioned in the original post not sat on their hands and pitched a fit because Bernie lost, the Supreme Court would have had 3 Justices added that would not have been hell bent on overturning decisions like Roe.  Instead, they gave an assist to 4 years of Trump and now want to scream and yell as though they are shocked that this has happened.  If that is blaming the common person, then maybe they deserve that blame.  Until we move beyond this 2 party mess, we have to consider more than our feelings when we vote.

Even the most partisan Democrat people i know now concede that it was for the best that Garland never got near the Supreme Court. HIs view that "Concerned Parents are Domestic Terrorists" has set the Dems backward a full decade. The Reps are going to be using that in national campaign ads forever.

Edited June 26, 2022 by DKW 86

[DKW 86 7,418]

19 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You’re apparently applying a standard fundamental rights analysis. The fundamental right doesn’t only begin to exist when the Court recognizes it. By recognizing it, the Court is declaring it’s a fundamental right that existed prior to the Constitution and must be treated as such.

Roe was decided with weaker, more vague legal reasoning than it should have been. There are much stronger legal arguments. Most Conservative justices have autocratic tendencies and are more inclined toward governmental power than recognizing individual rights outside that power— so they ignore the 9th Amendment. They claim to be originalists when they are actually ideologues.

”Today, most legal conservatives purport to be constitutional originalists. What that means for the legal debate over abortion is that any purported originalist must face the question of whether abortion rights may be considered to be among the unenumerated rights "retained by the people" that Madison's Ninth Amendment was specifically written and ratified to protect. Alito's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organizationentirely fails to grapple with this necessary question.

Here is my answer to the question: Founding era history strongly supports the view that abortion rights, at least during the early stages of pregnancy, do fall within the orbit of Madison's Ninth Amendment. "When the United States was founded and for many subsequent decades, Americans relied on the English common law," explained an amicus brief filed in Dobbs by the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians. "The common law did not regulate abortion in early pregnancy. Indeed, the common law did not even recognize abortion as occurring at that stage. That is because the common law did not legally acknowledge a fetus as existing separately from a pregnant woman until the woman felt fetal movement, called 'quickening,' which could occur as late as the 25th week of pregnancy."

William Blackstone's widely read Commentaries on the Laws of England, first published in 1765, made this exact point: Life "begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb." Under the common law, Blackstone explained, legal penalties for abortion only occurred "if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb."

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/alitos-abortion-ruling-overturning-roe-is-an-insult-to-the-9th-amendment/?amp

So let me get you on record here. FIVE REPUBLICAN APPOINTED JUSTICES arent fundies and arent THE PROBLEM 100% of the time? Kudos, I know that really really really chafes a completely partisan hack job like yourself. 

[DKW 86 7,418]

19 hours ago, AU9377 said:

This is the nuance, for lack of a better word.  The right to have an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy was based on the fundamental right to privacy.  The fundamental right was the right to privacy, not the right to have an abortion.

The court has now decided that the right to privacy does not include the right to have an abortion.  The right to privacy is still considered to be a fundamental right in this country.

This is WRONG WRONG WRONG. Complete BULL s***. The court in no way decided anything of the sort and this is just partisan hyperbole. All the court said was that THERE IS NO NATIONAL STANDARD TO BE IMPOSED BY THIS COURT. The states are free to DEMOCRATICALLY LEGISLATE ANYTHING the people in that state wants. There is no fundamental change in rights etc. This is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

[DKW 86 7,418]

14 hours ago, AUDub said:

What this does is effectively limits abortion to those with means.

Being poor sucks. A lot of folks are effectively anchored and don't have the time or money to go out of state for a medical procedure.

So what will they most likely do? It's possible a black market will spring back up, much as it was before Roe v. Wade. 

This is a TOTALLY CORRECT TAKE ON ALL THIS. Abortion will now mean most will have to travel to another state. It does not mean that Abortions wont be even more freer in some places. What it means is that each state will now DEMOCRATICALLY LEGISLATE what will happen in their borders. I would point out that this is truly a MORE DEMOCRATIC Answer than being imposed from above, but I am afraid the smaller minds here would explode not being able to create 20 something page threads is more often than not complete BS Rantings because they got their IMPOSED IMPROPERLY Decree removed for True Democracy to take place.

Edited June 26, 2022 by DKW 86

[DKW 86 7,418]

15 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I think you’re mistaken. The US Solicitor General, during oral argument, was specifically asked what the actual right was. Listen to her response (start at 1:26:00).

 

So, the Solicitor general of the US says that the Right is strictly about:

"A Woman's Right to an Abortion before Viability?" Did I get that right? That was the case law in front of the Court. They did not blow up the MS Law. They blew up the IMPOSED by SCOTUS Doctrine that Federal law supercedes state law unless there is Federal Legislative Action? Am I correct on this in your opinion?

[DKW 86 7,418]

16 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Just shows how much weight I place on your comments. 😉

Touche' And I on yours....And yet I respect your right to comment, without exception. My comments about you not posting was totally with tongue in cheek.

Edited June 26, 2022 by DKW 86

[DKW 86 7,418]

11 hours ago, AUDub said:

What this does is effectively limits abortion to those with means.

Being poor sucks. A lot of folks are effectively anchored and don't have the time or money to go out of state for a medical procedure.

So what will they most likely do? It's possible a black market will spring back up, much as it was before Roe v. Wade. 

I 100% Agree with your take. It is going to impose burdens on the poor. Like high gas prices, inflation, and a now useless minimum wage law. Like much in American Life, I would change this to something like MS Law and leave it alone. Abortions are no one's business but the woman's up until Viability or Quickening whatever. THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH SHOULD GET TOGETHER AND WRITE THAT LAW AND INSTITUTE IT. 

That is how it should have been done all along. It is what the American People want.

How Americans Really Feel About Abortion: The Sometimes Surprising Poll Results As Supreme Court Overturns Roe V. Wade (forbes.com)

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.