Updated: Roe v. Wade overturned

[TexasTiger 12,953]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

I love how Samuel Alito's words on paper, confirmed as such by John Robert, do no constitute facts. 

We know Roe is down at least 5-4 in the 9th inning with two outs, no one on base and two strikes.

[TexasTiger 12,953]

So @SaltyTigerare you 🤦‍♂️ What these Republicans said or me posting it?

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

7 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

So @SaltyTigerare you 🤦‍♂️ What these Republicans said or me posting it?

Wrong reaction for 1, did not mean to react on another, need to look closer at the other one. Going through wrap up on game last while reading. Hard to multi task these days.

[AUDub 11,153]

 

[aubiefifty 16,813]

a friend that is a british nurse posted this on her views and many in the medical field think about abortion. i just read it so i need to over think it like i do everything else. here it is and feel free to discuss and cuss. um best not cuss.................

 

Insufferably Intolerant Science Nerd

pnser77u l2 1h,990438u221y0J74  ·

"Here’s the thing, guys.

It doesn’t matter.

It doesn’t matter when life begins.

It doesn’t matter whether a fetus is a human being or not.

That entire argument is a red herring, a distraction, a subjective and unwinnable argument that could not matter less.

It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about a fertilized egg, or a fetus, or a baby, or a five year old, or a Nobel Prize winning paediatric oncologist.

NOBODY has the right to use your body, against your will, even to save their life, or the life of another person.

That’s it.

That’s the argument.

You cannot be forced to donate blood, or marrow, or organs, even though thousands die every year, on waiting lists.

They cannot even harvest your organs after your death without your explicit, written, pre-mortem permission.

Denying women the right to abortion means we have less bodily autonomy than a corpse."

 

 

[DKW 86 7,429]

10 hours ago, AUDub said:

I love how Samuel Alito's words on paper, confirmed as such by John Robert, do no constitute facts. 

It is a ******* first draft. Roberts has not signed on for anything, of course facts dont matter to anyone here.

[AUDub 11,153]

Just now, DKW 86 said:

It is a ******* first draft. Roberts has not signed on for anything, of course facts dont matter to anyone here.

A literal SCOTUS justice wrote it lol.

Alito is probably swinging for a five run dinger, yeah, but that a member of the Supreme Court wrote it at all should bother the s*** out of anyone with a brain. 

[DKW 86 7,429]

30 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

Insufferably Intolerant Science Nerd

pnser77u l2 1h,990438u221y0J74  ·

"Here’s the thing, guys.

It doesn’t matter.

It doesn’t matter when life begins.

It doesn’t matter whether a fetus is a human being or not.

That entire argument is a red herring, a distraction, a subjective and unwinnable argument that could not matter less.

It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about a fertilized egg, or a fetus, or a baby, or a five year old, or a Nobel Prize winning paediatric oncologist.

NOBODY has the right to use your body, against your will, even to save their life, or the life of another person.

That’s it.

That’s the argument.

You cannot be forced to donate blood, or marrow, or organs, even though thousands die every year, on waiting lists.

They cannot even harvest your organs after your death without your explicit, written, pre-mortem permission.

Denying women the right to abortion means we have less bodily autonomy than a corpse."

 

What if you read this from the Babies' Perspectives? It would read the same way. The baby has completely different DNA than the Mom. You have a chance to correct mess ups in Birth Control. You have 0 to 20 or 24 weeks to address that. 

[DKW 86 7,429]

Question: Why was there no Amendment made in the 49 years since Roe was made? 49 years and not even an attempt?

Edited May 8, 2022 by DKW 86

[DKW 86 7,429]

On 5/6/2022 at 8:02 AM, AUDub said:

Because Alito essentially said that the basis for that being a right doesn't exist in the following passage:

The due process clause of the 14th Amendment “has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be ‘deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.’”

Now I don't think the court will necessarily grant cert on a case challenging Loving, but the basis of that being a protected right no longer exists if this draft becomes the opinion of the court. 

More likely, they'll move on to contraceptives (Griswold) and gay marriage (Obergefell) in the next stage of the culture war. 

[aubiefifty 16,813]

7 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

What if you read this from the Babies' Perspectives? It would read the same way. The baby has completely different DNA than the Mom. You have a chance to correct mess ups in Birth Control. You have 0 to 20 or 24 weeks to address that. 

i get both sides and i was just posting another opinion and nothing more.

 

7 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Question: Why was there no Amendment made in the 49 years since Roe was made? 49 years and not even an attempt?

because it was a dang good way to get voters on either side stirred up?

[TexasTiger 12,953]

14 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

It is a ******* first draft. Roberts has not signed on for anything, of course facts dont matter to anyone here.

 

13 minutes ago, AUDub said:

A literal SCOTUS justice wrote it lol.

Alito is probably swinging for a five run dinger, yeah, but that a member of the Supreme Court wrote it at all should bother the s*** out of anyone with a brain. 

Alito was assigned to write the majority opinion after a vote. It may not be the final form, but it’s his starting point after a vote in that direction. These are facts. This is how the Court works, David. It’s not a final decision and can change, but you totally disregard the relevance. 

[DKW 86 7,429]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Alito was assigned to write the majority opinion after a vote. It may not be the final form, but it’s his starting point after a vote in that direction. These are facts. This is how the Court works, David. It’s not a final decision and can change, but you totally disregard the relevance. 

I was here for four years while half the board HALLUCINATED their collective asses off EVERY day for four years. 

And 99% of everything that was Hallucinated here never came true. 

[TexasTiger 12,953]

14 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

I was here for four years while half the board HALLUCINATED their collective asses off EVERY day for four years. 

And 99% of everything that was Hallucinated here never came true. 

You’ve been hallucinating for years.

[DKW 86 7,429]

But at least I got the last 4-5 years right. 😘

[TexasTiger 12,953]

3 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

But at least I got the last 4-5 years right. 😘

Hardly 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

The social problems that lead to abortion will only be exacerbated by the abolition of abortion.  The solutions to the problem will take real work, not simply legislation that criminalizes the act.

When did we become so heartless that we would rather spend billions policing, adjudicating, punishing people rather than investing millions in educating and assisting them? 

Ultimately, the abolition of abortion will be just as effective as the war on drugs.

[DKW 86 7,429]

This forum. ALWAYS EXAGERATE TO THE EXTREME. EVERY DAY, FOR FOUR ******* YEARS...Or more.

[AUDub 11,153]

6 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

The social problems that lead to abortion will only be exacerbated by the abolition of abortion.  The solutions to the problem will take real work, not simply legislation that criminalizes the act.

When did we become so heartless that we would rather spend billions policing, adjudicating, punishing people rather than investing millions in educating and assisting them? 

Ultimately, the abolition of abortion will be just as effective as the war on drugs.

Precisely. It doesn't make abortion more rare. It makes it more dangerous.

I've said it in the past and I stand by it: I could get behind a complete ban on elective abortion, with narrow exceptions for the health of the mother and child, and rape victims, if we had an effective social safety net that actually addressed why women feel the need to abort in the first place. The way we do it now actually encourages more abortions. 

Some of the highest abortion rates in the world occur in places where abortion is illegal but poverty is rampant. Some of the lowest rates in the world occur where abortion is legal but social safety nets are there to catch people that are in danger of being financially upended by a pregnancy. 

 

Edited May 8, 2022 by AUDub

[AUDub 11,153]

6 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

This forum. ALWAYS EXAGERATE TO THE EXTREME. EVERY DAY, FOR FOUR ******* YEARS...Or more.

The extreme here is a draft opinion by a SCOTUS Judge. 

[GoAU 1,600]

6 hours ago, AUDub said:

Precisely. It doesn't make abortion more rare. It makes it more dangerous.

I've said it in the past and I stand by it: I could get behind a complete ban on elective abortion, with narrow exceptions for the health of the mother and child, and rape victims, if we had an effective social safety net that actually addressed why women feel the need to abort in the first place. The way we do it now actually encourages more abortions. 

Some of the highest abortion rates in the world occur in places where abortion is illegal but poverty is rampant. Some of the lowest rates in the world occur where abortion is legal but social safety nets are there to catch people that are in danger of being financially upended by a pregnancy. 

 

You caught my attention on this - what are you thinking of when you refer to the safety net?  I agree that the majority of the “counseling” more than nudges or encourages abortion   
 

I’ve tried (and probably partially failed) to separate my personal beliefs from the legal ramifications of this case.  
 

I would have no legal issue with some early abortion (for example, prior to heartbeat / brain development, etc).  I also wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to public distribution of condoms (not in schools, but maybe in doctors offices, clinics, social services, etc) .  However, like in just about every other political topic, there is rarely a middle ground   For example, more and more very late term and partial birth abortions began to take hold, and I am very against the termination of a life that could easily exist outside the womb .  I also feel that without a national law permitting it, it clearly falls within states rights and the initial RvW was attempting to legislate from the courtroom, and isn’t really on solid legal footing.  Should a federal law with “reasonable” (I hate that term from a political standpoint, but only used it for brevity) limits be proposed, I could get behind it  

 

[TexasTiger 12,953]

9 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

The social problems that lead to abortion will only be exacerbated by the abolition of abortion.  The solutions to the problem will take real work, not simply legislation that criminalizes the act.

When did we become so heartless that we would rather spend billions policing, adjudicating, punishing people rather than investing millions in educating and assisting them? 

Ultimately, the abolition of abortion will be just as effective as the war on drugs.

Most, not all, pushing for it just want to chastise and punish— and hypocritically leave the state when they need to.

[AUDub 11,153]

15 hours ago, GoAU said:

You caught my attention on this - what are you thinking of when you refer to the safety net?  I agree that the majority of the “counseling” more than nudges or encourages abortion  

It's more about support for expectant mothers. To quote one of my better posts on the matter:

Quote

They’re closely tied together. I would argue that the nature of American style welfare actually encourages more abortions, particularly among women already on welfare. However, a broad social safety net and universal health care that covers the staggering costs of pre and post natal care will reduce abortions.  

Take, for instance, a poor woman here in Alabama on welfare. A women with one child on welfare assistance here gets $400ish in cash assistance a month. Now, lets be generous and assume her housing is totally subsidized, and she's on medicaid. That just leaves her having to feed, cloth, get childcare while she's at work (a requirement of welfare in many states) and send her kid to school on around $400 a month. That's pretty harsh, right? So how much would she receive in cash benefits if she were to have another child? 

$500ish.

Yes, if she had another child, and double the financial obligations, her cash payments would go up by roughly a whopping $100. Would you like to raise a child on $100 a month? 

Are we supposed to be surprised that women who are already on welfare, and who thus are struggling to raise a child on around $400 a month, would be more likely to have an abortion when faced with caring for another child, with only another $100 a month to care for them?

Of course women on welfare in this country will be more likely to abort their children! They're the people who suffer most from poverty, and can least afford more children! No welfare recipient in this country is getting the kind of support that would reduce abortions. Like I said, our welfare system actually encourages abortion since in nearly every state the amount of cash benefits per child decreases with every additional child.

Compare this woman to a woman in Western Europe. Depending on where she lives, the woman in Western Europe will receive cash benefits that, unlike the US system, pay above the poverty line and where the amount per child does not decrease with every additional child. She'll have free access to health care, free access to child care, and if she's working, a year of fully paid maternity leave.  

Is it any wonder, then, that Western Europe has an abortion rate that's way lower than our own? A woman facing an unexpected pregnancy in Western Europe is not facing the economic hardships that a similar woman would be facing under our current welfare system.

 

15 hours ago, GoAU said:

I’ve tried (and probably partially failed) to separate my personal beliefs from the legal ramifications of this case.  

We're Catholic and I have little issue doing so lol. 

[AUDub 11,153]

15 hours ago, GoAU said:

I would have no legal issue with some early abortion (for example, prior to heartbeat / brain development, etc).  I also wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to public distribution of condoms (not in schools, but maybe in doctors offices, clinics, social services, etc) .  However, like in just about every other political topic, there is rarely a middle ground   For example, more and more very late term and partial birth abortions began to take hold, and I am very against the termination of a life that could easily exist outside the womb .  I also feel that without a national law permitting it, it clearly falls within states rights and the initial RvW was attempting to legislate from the courtroom, and isn’t really on solid legal footing.  Should a federal law with “reasonable” (I hate that term from a political standpoint, but only used it for brevity) limits be proposed, I could get behind it  

Roe tried to do just that with the "viability" standard. 

Few would disagree with that position. The vast majority pro-choice individuals draw the line at fetal viability. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,133]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/08/abortion-tate-reeves-mississippi-contraception/

 

Some on the Right and in the "Middle" are going to look silly when Republican's actually start trying to ban contraception's and traveling out of state for pregnancy care. 

 

"Republicans just want to to stop abortions in their own state's. they wont go farther than that." 

 

yeah...sure. 

 

Miss. governor doesn’t rule out banning contraception if Roe falls

 

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves (R) on Sunday refused to rule out the possibility that his state would ban certain forms of contraception, sidestepping questions about what would happen next if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

 

On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Reeves confirmed that, if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, a trigger law passed in Mississippi in 2007 would go into effect that essentially outlaws abortions in the state, although it makes exceptions for rape and for the life of the mother.

When asked if Mississippi might next target the use of contraceptives such as the Plan B pill or intrauterine devices, Reeves demurred, saying that was not what the state was focused on “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. “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.”

On Sunday, Reeves said he thinks “life begins at conception” but repeatedly avoided answering whether he meant at the moment of an egg’s fertilization or when an embryo attaches to the womb.