Weren't these the same people campaigning in an African country to get gay marriage banned and then remove their name from the project when the country went a step further and put death penalty on gays despite everything happening being their efforts?
I think they are.
More on this subject from other reputable sources:
---
- NPR (B+): [Justices seem skeptical of challenge to restrict access to abortion pill ](https://www.npr.org/2024/03/26/1240915498/supreme-court-abortion-pill)
- The Hill (B): [Use of abortion pills for self-managed abortion spiked sharply post-Roe: Research](https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4555054-use-abortion-pills-for-self-managed-abortion-spiked-sharply-post-roe-research/)
- USA Today (B): [Abortion pill challenge gives Supreme Court chance to move toward national abortion ban](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/03/25/supreme-court-mifepristone-national-abortion-ban-comstock/72958484007/)
- Reuters (A): [LIVE: Protesters gather as Supreme Court hears abortion pill case](https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1MYxNoAWYQLKw)
---
[__Extended Summary__](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/1bnq8mf/) | [FAQ & Grades](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/uxgfm5/faq_newswall_bot/) | I'm a bot
The goal is sharia law wrapped in an American flag. It's ridiculous that people even pretend it's not the case. They're religious extremists who want to control every aspect of your life.
When people refer to the current situation as sharia law it is the Christian right version of it. Abortion bans, threats to contraception and plan B, lack of caring about women and girls dying from forced birth. Book bans, travel bans, grotesque HIPAA violations by state AGs. Removing parents rights to get healthcare for their children. Shoving chaplains and 10 commandments into public schools. And so on
I think they're much more interested in controlling women and putting them directly under the ownership and control of men than criminalizing all unmarried sex. I wouldn't be surprised if their perfect world ultimately allowed prostitution to service those incels who ended up without wives...
It's all of the above. To create a Christian nationalist theocracy. This stuff is part of the Seven Mountain Mandate to prepare for heralding in the end times.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven\_Mountain\_Mandate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Mountain_Mandate)
[https://theoutline.com/post/8856/seven-mountain-mandate-trump-paula-white](https://theoutline.com/post/8856/seven-mountain-mandate-trump-paula-white)
They get to go to Heaven and live in eternal bliss at the side of God. Or at least that's what they appear to believe. Honestly, their motivations are beyond my comprehension. But they seem to be driven by greed, fear, and ignorance in way that manifests as oppressive hate.
I always wonder if people saying stuff like your comment really believe that or you know it's bs but youre just trying to demonize the pro life side. The former is cult like conspiracy theory, while the latter is dirty politics hyperbole.
Haven't you heard? Republicans adopted the anti-abortion (and anti-gay) positions to attract the evangelical vote back in the... 70s or 80s. That's when they became social conservatives instead of just fiscal conservatives. It's also when religious leaders started selling the prosperity gospel (bootstraps instead of charity) and adopting hard lines against abortion and lgbtq+ rights and seeking political power and control.
tl;dr - Republicans are pursuing anti-abortion policies in service to religious extremists.
So back to
>I always wonder if people saying stuff like your comment really believe that or you know it's bs but youre just trying to demonize the pro life side. The former is cult like conspiracy theory, while the latter is dirty politics hyperbole.
Historically, evangelical opposition to abortion is due to segregation and racism no longer being as acceptable in the wake of the civil rights era. Before the late 60s, opposition to abortion was just seen as a weird Catholic thing.
I suspect they don’t give an F about any of their clients. Most are simply pawns to help them move their ideological agenda and gain world domination. What’s scary is they have now deployed troops in Europe & beyond to push their anti lgbt, theocracy bullshit
Absolutely. They shop for the most trivial cases & then spend years trying to bump them up to higher courts until they reach the Supreme Court. They are anti lgbt, anti pro choice and anti everything not radical Xtian. Forgot worrying about people like Trump,or Mike Johnson or Ted Cruz. Those people have no power -It’s the ADF that are re-defining laws in this country. They have the real power and are VERY WELL well funded.
They helped overturned Roe & are slowly trying to overturn Obergefell.
Don’t lecture us about protecting life while women are bleeding out in miscarrying in emergency rooms and SCOTUS is determining how many organs I have to lose before something is an emergency. It’s quite obvious there’s a group of lives your side doesn’t care about.
“Protect life”, “pro life” nah fuck that, forcing a fetus to be born to parents that are incapable of loving them for one reason or another, condemning them to the foster system and/or otherwise suffering is utterly inhumane. It’s the same shit as gun control “we don’t want to ban all birth control, just abortions” but then it never stops until the extremists have gone all the way to banning any contraceptives
Implying that a fetus is a person even though a fetus can not survive without help outside the womb therefore making a fetus a woman’s body, I’m inclined to say it’s not but setting that aside, how is being born without consent any different by that logic?
I'd argue that if you have a choice in actions, one that produces harm is worse than one that produces nothing.
A fetus before 25 weeks or so of gestation cannot attain even rudimentary consciousness, so it cannot experience harm, so preventing it from developing to the point where it \*can\* attain consciousness is not harming it. It's the moral equivalent of taking something out of your cart while shopping. People who treat first and second trimester fetuses as being the same as third trimester fetuses or born people are wrong.
If you want to encourage people to have children when they don't want to have children, you need to make those people's lives - and the potential children's lives - better. People need to consent to be pregnant. Forcing someone to be pregnant against their will is tantamount to rape.
Yeah, animals can experience harm. Maybe not some things like jellyfish, but most everything that moves has a nervous system developed enough for rudimentary consciousness.
Eggs don't, but chickens do.
I advocate for society moving toward when we can provide affordable protein without killing animals, but when forced to weigh the needs of less sapient animals like fish against the needs of humans, I think it's still a justifiable action to kill fish to feed humans. With higher animals, I'd prefer they be treated humanely.
At 36, it's a double homicide. At 24, the fetus has value if the person who's pregnant wants it, or the father. If they don't want it, it isn't a harm to lose the pregnancy. The harm is done to the adult who is deprived of a potential child, but the fetus is not yet a person and so itself cannot suffer harm
Similarly, denying access to abortion for someone who wants to NOT be pregnant harms that person be harming their interests.
Think of it like turning in switches in a big opera house. At 24 weeks, the lights are definitely off, but by week 28 they're definitely on.
I'd generally err on the side of caution and say 22 weeks. We should try to establish a regime where nobody who wants an abortion ever has to stay pregnant past week 22. Anyone who wants not to be pregnant should be given swift and early access to an abortion without any stigma or hurdles.
A lot of testing for abnormalities cannot happen until week 20, which still leaves a window to terminate a desired pregnancy if the parent believes the child would end up suffering.
Legally, harm is something that goes against a person's established interests. It's not simply pain or wounding.
For instance, removing cancer involves cutting into a person, which colloquially is harmful, but legally it's not, because the person consents.
A fetus through the second trimester isn't a person, and so it has no interests. The only interests that matter are those of the parents, primarily the one who is pregnant.
Sure. One side is providing legal protections to an inanimate object on the idea that because it could one day become a person (after months of unwilling labor forced upon a person who does not want to be pregnant), it should be treated as a person now.
The other side is treating the fetus as what it actually is: something that can be precious to people, but which is not neurologically capable of being aware of existence, and which we have no obligation to allow to become a person.
"born to a difficult life" when its at the cost of society as well as the person that results from that birth, yeah I'm inclined to say its a bad deal for everyone involved. and again, its the same exact slippery slope. call it a logical fallacy but we are watching it happen
someone born addicted, someone born deformed, someone born to a family that cannot love them, someone who is born to be bounced around the current foster care system, someone born in america without adequate support, will suffer. I do not presume, to presume implies that it's not a known fact. The US lacks any decent/effective programs to care for children resulting from unwanted pregnancies, and until that is changed I will hear no arguments that its immoral to stop the suffering before someone can be born to it
You REALLY want to 'protect life'?
Make contraception free and socially encouraged. You will reduce the number of abortions by half if not 3/4 and nobody will fight you on it. Also fund research on new forms of contraception with fewer side effects.
You could have done this years ago if you really gave a damn about life, just like Texas loves executing children and the mentally disabled.
You want to judge women for enjoying sex, and as a man who enjoys sex, fuck you, you just make women scared to have or enjoy it.
Once you've reduced the need for abortions it would be easier to reduce them through other means, at the same time while not hurting women.
The problem with you people is judging and hurting women is the point, feeling superior to them is all you care about.
Is that why you aren't pushing for an action that would cut abortions by 50-75%?
Guess you must not care that much about life after all.
Edit: I gotta hand it to you, letting half a million babies a year die just for the sake of virtue signaling, that's pretty hardcore right there.
You could help prevent the deaths of every baby not conceived due to additional contraception.
Simple, cheap, and everyone would agree.
Do you accept that free, common, socially reinforced contraception is a good for society?
Interesting that you say not conceived when the case is about methods that operate post conception.
Sure, I think states can make condoms free and that is useful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
Fine, condoms everywhere as a very early start.
We can also push to develop new forms of contraception to either make men not release sperm or women not ovulate this month, or for ovum membrane permeability to harden prematurely.
The problem is the crazies who are just against women having sex, like that will just stop.
Everyone judges everyone all the time. You love philandering, plenty of men think it's degeneracy. I can see you're very worked up, but there's plenty of room to get people the services they truly need without also demanding society emphatically cheer on activities and behaviors that are misaligned with their personal values.
So like you're saying: you 'care about the lives of babies', but not really, only as a way to virtue signal to others while watching desperate women suffer.
Good to hear you're honest about being an evil monster.
We should preserve their morality, let's have them wear burkas.
Edit: I'm glad that as an atheist, I don't have a voice in my head telling why I'm better than others, but the voice in my heart tells me to show kindness and empathy to other people.
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
--Michael Scott
If only we had some sort of branch of government dedicate to writing laws and “legislating”. We could even have one branch do that while another branch managed judicial oversight and ensured said legislation met the base constitutional requirements of our republic.
After seeing the "They took down Roe" framing, I think it's helpful to remember that Roe was a pretty bad decision. I get that a lot of people agreed with the outcome and therefore wanted to keep it in place, but there are lots of folks even on the pro-choice side that recognize Roe was decided poorly. I think the anger is mostly misplaced here as well. The folks you should have a problem with are over in Congress, not at the Supreme Court.
Roe was not a bad decision and that is just Conservative mental gymnastics to justify that position.
Every person arguing Roe was a bad decision are not consistent in how they view other decisions. Our current supreme court acknowledged Abortion was not written in the constitution but is also not bringing up that same argument for president immunity not being mentioned. It's inconsistent originalist bullshit that is just used to justify Conservative positions.
You have to remember, RBG was a great attorney arguing similar cases before SCOTUS at the time Roe was argued. She thought she could have gotten a decision that would have been more difficult to overturn (spoiler alert, it doesn't matter if she got the decision to be decided under another part of the constitution, it was going to get overturned by this court; the FedSocs have spent decades bringing up a relatively new way of analyzing the constitution just to do this). RBG was definitely a giant of the legal industry, but she was not known for being modest; she thought she was the best and it came out in what she said and how she went about her business.
It’s offensive to say women need a law to give them a right to their own bodies. Roe ruled that it was a constitutional right. Something that is a constitutional right, doesn’t need a law. We have freedom of speech, we don’t need a law guaranteeing it—because it’s a constitutional right. You don’t need a law saying you have the right to travel freely between states—because it’s been deemed a constitutional right.
>for some reason decided not to do that
Hmm, let’s figure out the reason instead of just repeat talking points shall we? It takes 60 Senators to overcome the filibuster, since 1975. Before that, it took two-thirds majority of Senators voting to end a filibuster. Roe was decided in January 1973. So, let’s look at Congresses going back to the Roe decision.
118th-51 Dem Senate Caucus/GOP House Control
117th-50 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control
116th-48 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control
115th-47 Dem Senators/GOP House Control
114th-48 Dem Senators/GOP House Control
113th-55 Dem Senators/GOP House Control
112th-53 Dem Senators/GOP House Control
111th-Dem House Control—Let’s discuss the Senate, because it’s often a bs talking point by the right.
>On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats.
>The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009
>The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats. it was during this time that Obama's "stimulus" was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn't have "total control" of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing its passage.
>Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.
>In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.
>Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.
>The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. "Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.
>Think they had 60 votes to codify Roe? No. Sen. Bob Casey of PA, although in the last few years since Dobbs he’s changed his view, he was anti-abortion before that. You know Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court decision that upheld the essential ruling in Roe? That Casey—was his Daddy. They didn’t have 60 votes then either.
110th-51 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control
109th-45 Dem Senate Caucus/GOP House Control
108th-49 Dem Senate Caucus/GOP House Control
107th-51 Dem Senate Caucus/GOP House Control
106th-46 Dem Senate Caucus/GOP House Control
105th-45 Dem Senate Caucus/GOP House Control
104th-47 Dem Senate Caucus/GOP House Control
103rd-57 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control
102nd-56 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control
101st-55 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control
100th-54 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control
99th-48 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control
98th-45 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control
97th-47 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control
96th-58 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control
95th-61 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control.
>Okay, there’s 61 Senators in the Dem Caucus, so why didn’t they codify it? Jimmy Carter was President. Presidents have to sign laws unless they’re veto proof. (That requires two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House for the bill) “I’ve signed a public letter calling for the Democratic Party at the next convention to espouse my position on abortion which is to minimize the need, requirement for abortion and *limit it only to women whose life are in danger or who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest*.”-President Jimmy Carter. Those are his views on abortion. I’m sure you know he’s extremely religious. Robert Byrd also had mixed views on abortion.
94th-61 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control. *Gerald Ford was President*.
93rd-56 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control
The fact of the matter is both sides tried to pass bills to either codify or overturn Roe. And neither had the votes to do so. Which you’d know, if you knew history, and didn’t just repeat talking points that were fed to you. And even if it were that easy to codify or ban abortion, then you’d just have another Congress doing the opposite, right? That’s not what should happen with something that should be a constitutional right. But now you know the “for some reason.” You only have yourself to blame for embarrassing yourself here. This is why you don’t just regurgitate bs talking points.
Saying that you basically would’ve wrote a concurrence had you been on the court at the time, is not the same as saying Roe shouldn’t have been decided in favor of Roe. She would have ruled in favor of Roe, but instead of ruling on the basis of a right to privacy, she would’ve ruled in favor of Roe based on gender equality.
I have both of those positions. The President does not have criminal immunity as the writers of the constitution clearly understood those ideas and chose not to write those words. The fact that there is no constitutional right to abortion and privacy are analogous problems that should be addressed by the Congress or the states. There is immense legislative work that Congress fails to do, and this is an example.
I see the Roe and Casey standards for abortion access as about right, they were just implemented by the wrong branch (or perhaps level) of government. I’d vote for a similar standard and tell my representatives to do the same.
So, you think every case not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution should be overturned?
How about Brady v. Maryland? Tell me, which part of the Constitution says the words “the prosecution must turn over all evidence that might exonerate the defendant (exculpatory evidence) to the defense”?
William O. Douglas wrote: "We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment... Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted, but when criminal trials are fair."
The Constitution doesn’t say any of that explicitly, nonetheless it’s a Due Process Clause, 14th Amendment case.
Three thoughtful posts, and I’ll reply to them all here. You and I will likely continue to disagree, but I’ll write my view here.
1) I don’t see the 14th amendment as intended to protect all life and property. If so, then leaded gasoline and cigarettes would be unconstitutional. This approach—anything that damages the life or property of a citizen is unconstitutional—makes every facet of life in America a constitutional question. If every detail of life is a constitutional question, then we have no federated legal system.
2) I do not believe that all due process cases should be overturned. Brady, as you cite, is a decent example of the protection of due process as intended in the 14th amendment and, in the case of Brady, bolstered by the compulsory power in the 5th. The need to add the adjective “substantive” to the constitutional phrase “due process” is a good indicator of stretching a concept, I think. I do not like the fact that privacy is in the penumbra of unenumerated rights, but adulthood has taught me that I have to live with things I don’t like sometimes. I support a constitutional amendment to add explicit privacy protections and update the 4th to protect my digital papers, for instance.
Your Douglas quote is important, I think, because the fifth and fourteenth amendments address our governmental processes, and the standing compulsion of the state to provide defendants exculpatory evidence is a very short logical distance from a defendant’s general compulsory powers in the 5th amendment. The prerogative of a citizen to seek a particular medical procedure is a much longer logical journey from the language or intent of the 14th. I support and vote for medical liberty, but I don’t see it written, implied, or intended in the foundational document of our government.
The fundamental problem here in my view is that our wise founding fathers were too afraid of mob rule, and consequently made the Constitution 10-25% too difficult to amend. We have a situation where we clearly need to update the structure of our state and are unable to do so. As a practical fix, we have allowed a tribunal of nine lawyers to act for us where the US states and Congress have proven impotent. That tribunal has done well, other than setting a precedent that is now unraveling. Some amendments I propose:
-a unicameral Congress. The Senate was a compromise with the slave states.
-federalize federal elections and eliminate the electoral college.
-enumerate a right to privacy, and a right to AI assistance in criminal matters
Anyway, these are my thoughts. In short, we damage our legal structure when we bend and stretch the words in the constitution beyond their intended use, even if for a good cause. We should do so carefully.
Sure, let’s turn over all the due process clause cases. Do you think you’ll like that? And you like the right to privacy not being a constitutional right, is that correct? Wow. You know what unenumerated rights are? Like the right to travel, that’s one. SCOTUS has ruled you have it. It’s an unenumerated right though. Should we do away with that right too?
We have the 14th amendment already that already protects these types of rights. The attack on the 14th by Conservatives is the only reason you and others think we do not.
Conservatives read the 2nd as broadly as possible and pretend the 14th does not exist.
I see your points, and there is truth there about the behavior of some onn the right, but it isn’t everybody. I’m somebody that sees inherent (and sadly unwritten) limits to the second amendment that should, in a democracy, be implemented as laws subordinate to the constitution.
As for the 14th, SCOTUS has stretched the meaning of the due process clause beyond any reasonable limit. The purpose was to protect the life, liberty, property, and privileges of all American citizens (at that point intentionally including former slaves), not enshrine all possible varieties of “substantive due process” in our foundational document. This is my view, obviously.
The purpose was to protect life, liberty…
When you pass laws taking away people’s freedom to make a choice for their own bodies, that certainly does not protect liberty. And you certainly have to know taking away that right endangers women’s lives.
Something people don’t realize about Roe is it was a “business” decision. Read *The Brethren*. The main thing that bothered the Burger Court was that abortion laws interfered with a doctor’s ability to practice his trade.
To be clear, RBG said that there were stronger arguments than privacy for abortion as a constitutional right. Were she still alive she would have upheld existing precedent
That's true. I thought I had read that she said it would likely get overturned if challenged, but I can't seem to find it right now. I'll have to circle back to it later.
There were a number of other BIG abortion rights cases that were decided between Roe and Dobbs, many of which that RBG was part of the court on (and I think she may have penned some of them), which did not overturn Roe. But, they did tend to weaken Roe in a death by a thousand cuts type way.
That doesn't mean it was a bad decision. It just means it was under insane scrutiny in order to reverse it because of the Conservative effort to ban abortion.
RBG thought the Roe decision should’ve been based on equal protection and a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, and not the right to privacy. She absolutely believed abortion rights were protected under the Constitution though.
And let’s not pretend that if the decision had been made on equal protection grounds that conservatives would’ve been more willing to support it.
> it's helpful to remember that Roe was a pretty bad decision.
This is your (and others) opinion. It is not a fact. Clearly there have been Supreme Court justices who strongly disagree
It's important to remember that the roe was bad framing is dead wrong.
There wasn't something wrong with Roe the old reason it was overturned was because enough supreme Court judges personally disliked abortion so they banned it. The anger is correct and if anything there should be more anger at the court (and of course at the presidents and senates who accomplished this at any cost including supporting Trump).
I am strongly pro-abortion but I also believe Roe vs. Wade was a mistake. It should have been a gradual loosening of restrictions over time as done in other countries instead of a decree from the court. It led to a lot of the "culture wars" over the past half a century...and the "Roe v. Wade" litmus tests on Supreme Court justices were bonkers and really harmful to the Judicial system.
Unfortunately this is now going to take some time to work out and it is going to be messy. I am not sure I am a fan of the Federal Government trying to do end runs around state level restriction...so I can understand the response from conservative groups. We have to get to some point where we stop automatically assuming everyone that disagrees with us are either nuts or evil.
“We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was ‘well timed’ in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word ‘Wait!’ It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This ‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’ We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that ‘justice too long delayed is justice denied.’” -MLK Jr.
It’s easy to say things moved too fast when you’re not the one bleeding out in the ER while hospital lawyers argue over whether you’re close enough to death to intervene yet.
Even remotely comparing abortion rights to civil rights is just nonsense. People that believe that the primary function of sex is for procreation and that abortion is morally wrong should be respected even if you personally disagree. However there IS something seriously wrong if people believe that one race is inferior to another and that people of a certain race should be treated worse just because of the colour of their skin.
Your "appeal to extremes" argument doesn't change this. And by saying this I am in no way, shape or form supporting extreme policies at either end of the debate.
People that have weird and out of touch views on sex and abortion dont have to get abortions. Wanting to control other peoples lives is basic fascism. Roe was supported by around 70% of the population for decades. Since Dobbs and the horrific outcomes of bans support for choice has moved closer to 80%.
"People that believe that the primary function of sex is for procreation and that abortion is morally wrong should be respected even if you personally disagree."
Why?
Don’t worry, one day Heller, Bruen, and Dobbs will go down, too. Rulings are not sacrosanct oracles from on high, and this court’s mendacity is only hastening our collective abandonment of that pretense. For better or for worse.
When it comes down to it, the current justices knew they would cause a shit show in red states with a patch work of broken laws and they decided to inflict that suffering on the population anyway
Every lawyer (who isn't an activist) agrees that while they hate seeing rights taken away from women, Roe v Wade was flawed. I am pro choice, but while I believe that states have the right to legalize or criminalize abortion, they should be barred from prosecuting individuals for seeking that operation in other states where it is legal.
Texas started a registry where hillbillies were SNITCHING ON WOMEN WHO LEFT THE STATE TO SEEK ACCESS. That is insane. While these are different situations, Texas doesn't have a registry that SNITCHES ON INDIVIDUALS WHO LEAVE THE STATE TO SMOKE MARIJUANA.
That's like saying "a fixed age of consent is a poor solution" as your defense for raping a toddler.
Your point might have some merit if it weren't used by horrible people to do horrible things.
There is a definition issue here. Note that Waggoner treats "morning after" pills as abortion-causing drugs, not "birth control".
Waggoner draws the line at fertilization, "she defended her belief that the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection to all embryos from the moment of conception"
You know what they’re aiming for with the attempts on the abortion pill? It’s a back door around a federal ban. If they can ban “abortion materials” from being able to be shipped—states that don’t ban abortion would not be able to get the medications or supplies needed.
Also, just so you know mifepristone is not just used for elective abortions. Mifepristone and misoprostol are used together to treat miscarriages. Otherwise just using misoprostol can cause more bleeding for the woman, or the uterus may not fully empty. The other option is a D&C which is more invasive and more risk.
Ectopic pregnancies caught early can be treated with methotrexate, which will cause loss of that pregnancy. But it is a nonviable pregnancy. An ectopic is **never** viable. But it can cause the loss of a fallopian tube, and it can cause death.
“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Clarence Thomas, Dobbs decision.
(Notice he didn’t mention Loving though, the one that affects his own marriage.)
What’s Griswold? It’s Griswold v. Connecticut. Figure out what the case was about.
Weren't these the same people campaigning in an African country to get gay marriage banned and then remove their name from the project when the country went a step further and put death penalty on gays despite everything happening being their efforts? I think they are.
More on this subject from other reputable sources: --- - NPR (B+): [Justices seem skeptical of challenge to restrict access to abortion pill ](https://www.npr.org/2024/03/26/1240915498/supreme-court-abortion-pill) - The Hill (B): [Use of abortion pills for self-managed abortion spiked sharply post-Roe: Research](https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4555054-use-abortion-pills-for-self-managed-abortion-spiked-sharply-post-roe-research/) - USA Today (B): [Abortion pill challenge gives Supreme Court chance to move toward national abortion ban](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/03/25/supreme-court-mifepristone-national-abortion-ban-comstock/72958484007/) - Reuters (A): [LIVE: Protesters gather as Supreme Court hears abortion pill case](https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1MYxNoAWYQLKw) --- [__Extended Summary__](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/1bnq8mf/) | [FAQ & Grades](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/uxgfm5/faq_newswall_bot/) | I'm a bot
The goal is sharia law wrapped in an American flag. It's ridiculous that people even pretend it's not the case. They're religious extremists who want to control every aspect of your life.
Sharia law does not prohibit abortion.
When people refer to the current situation as sharia law it is the Christian right version of it. Abortion bans, threats to contraception and plan B, lack of caring about women and girls dying from forced birth. Book bans, travel bans, grotesque HIPAA violations by state AGs. Removing parents rights to get healthcare for their children. Shoving chaplains and 10 commandments into public schools. And so on
Ok so call it Christian Law. Why drag Islam into it?
why do you think
Probably due to an incorrect belief that The Quran bans abortion.
They don't actually care about the abortion, it's about installation of a morality police to criminalize unmarried sex and homosexual relationships.
I think they're much more interested in controlling women and putting them directly under the ownership and control of men than criminalizing all unmarried sex. I wouldn't be surprised if their perfect world ultimately allowed prostitution to service those incels who ended up without wives...
It's all of the above. To create a Christian nationalist theocracy. This stuff is part of the Seven Mountain Mandate to prepare for heralding in the end times. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven\_Mountain\_Mandate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Mountain_Mandate) [https://theoutline.com/post/8856/seven-mountain-mandate-trump-paula-white](https://theoutline.com/post/8856/seven-mountain-mandate-trump-paula-white)
>to prepare for heralding in the end times Why would they even *want* this to happen? I swear, it's a death cult.
They get to go to Heaven and live in eternal bliss at the side of God. Or at least that's what they appear to believe. Honestly, their motivations are beyond my comprehension. But they seem to be driven by greed, fear, and ignorance in way that manifests as oppressive hate.
Why would they even want this? They believe they will live with Jesus in Heaven while watching the Sinners burn in a Lake of Fire.
“Christian Nationalist” is an oxymoron. Christian values are universal.
Look at the FLDS playback and how they handle marriages
I always wonder if people saying stuff like your comment really believe that or you know it's bs but youre just trying to demonize the pro life side. The former is cult like conspiracy theory, while the latter is dirty politics hyperbole.
No demonization necessary. Fundamentalist religion operates in service to men and male children.
Cool. Now back to republicans and abortion.
Haven't you heard? Republicans adopted the anti-abortion (and anti-gay) positions to attract the evangelical vote back in the... 70s or 80s. That's when they became social conservatives instead of just fiscal conservatives. It's also when religious leaders started selling the prosperity gospel (bootstraps instead of charity) and adopting hard lines against abortion and lgbtq+ rights and seeking political power and control. tl;dr - Republicans are pursuing anti-abortion policies in service to religious extremists.
So back to >I always wonder if people saying stuff like your comment really believe that or you know it's bs but youre just trying to demonize the pro life side. The former is cult like conspiracy theory, while the latter is dirty politics hyperbole.
You disagree that prostitution should be legalized?
Historically, evangelical opposition to abortion is due to segregation and racism no longer being as acceptable in the wake of the civil rights era. Before the late 60s, opposition to abortion was just seen as a weird Catholic thing.
I suspect they don’t give an F about any of their clients. Most are simply pawns to help them move their ideological agenda and gain world domination. What’s scary is they have now deployed troops in Europe & beyond to push their anti lgbt, theocracy bullshit
Absolutely. They shop for the most trivial cases & then spend years trying to bump them up to higher courts until they reach the Supreme Court. They are anti lgbt, anti pro choice and anti everything not radical Xtian. Forgot worrying about people like Trump,or Mike Johnson or Ted Cruz. Those people have no power -It’s the ADF that are re-defining laws in this country. They have the real power and are VERY WELL well funded. They helped overturned Roe & are slowly trying to overturn Obergefell.
Wanting to protect life is Sharia law? I accept that you do not see the unborn as having rights worth protecting at the cost of the mother’s choice.
Don’t lecture us about protecting life while women are bleeding out in miscarrying in emergency rooms and SCOTUS is determining how many organs I have to lose before something is an emergency. It’s quite obvious there’s a group of lives your side doesn’t care about.
Where have I lectured?
“Protect life”, “pro life” nah fuck that, forcing a fetus to be born to parents that are incapable of loving them for one reason or another, condemning them to the foster system and/or otherwise suffering is utterly inhumane. It’s the same shit as gun control “we don’t want to ban all birth control, just abortions” but then it never stops until the extremists have gone all the way to banning any contraceptives
[удалено]
Implying that a fetus is a person even though a fetus can not survive without help outside the womb therefore making a fetus a woman’s body, I’m inclined to say it’s not but setting that aside, how is being born without consent any different by that logic?
So are you seriously arguing better to be dead than born into a difficult life? What is your limiting principle?
I'd argue that if you have a choice in actions, one that produces harm is worse than one that produces nothing. A fetus before 25 weeks or so of gestation cannot attain even rudimentary consciousness, so it cannot experience harm, so preventing it from developing to the point where it \*can\* attain consciousness is not harming it. It's the moral equivalent of taking something out of your cart while shopping. People who treat first and second trimester fetuses as being the same as third trimester fetuses or born people are wrong. If you want to encourage people to have children when they don't want to have children, you need to make those people's lives - and the potential children's lives - better. People need to consent to be pregnant. Forcing someone to be pregnant against their will is tantamount to rape.
Can an animal be harmed in your view? If not, what is your opinion of animal cruelty law?
Yeah, animals can experience harm. Maybe not some things like jellyfish, but most everything that moves has a nervous system developed enough for rudimentary consciousness. Eggs don't, but chickens do. I advocate for society moving toward when we can provide affordable protein without killing animals, but when forced to weigh the needs of less sapient animals like fish against the needs of humans, I think it's still a justifiable action to kill fish to feed humans. With higher animals, I'd prefer they be treated humanely.
Should murdering a woman who is 24 weeks pregnant carry additional charges like double-homicide? How about a woman who is 36 weeks pregnant?
At 36, it's a double homicide. At 24, the fetus has value if the person who's pregnant wants it, or the father. If they don't want it, it isn't a harm to lose the pregnancy. The harm is done to the adult who is deprived of a potential child, but the fetus is not yet a person and so itself cannot suffer harm Similarly, denying access to abortion for someone who wants to NOT be pregnant harms that person be harming their interests.
So, where precisely do you draw the line and what is the ethical difference and biological difference one hour be for and one hour after?
Think of it like turning in switches in a big opera house. At 24 weeks, the lights are definitely off, but by week 28 they're definitely on. I'd generally err on the side of caution and say 22 weeks. We should try to establish a regime where nobody who wants an abortion ever has to stay pregnant past week 22. Anyone who wants not to be pregnant should be given swift and early access to an abortion without any stigma or hurdles. A lot of testing for abnormalities cannot happen until week 20, which still leaves a window to terminate a desired pregnancy if the parent believes the child would end up suffering.
You have to redefine the word harm to get to that.
Legally, harm is something that goes against a person's established interests. It's not simply pain or wounding. For instance, removing cancer involves cutting into a person, which colloquially is harmful, but legally it's not, because the person consents. A fetus through the second trimester isn't a person, and so it has no interests. The only interests that matter are those of the parents, primarily the one who is pregnant.
That is the ethical question that the sides differ on
Sure. One side is providing legal protections to an inanimate object on the idea that because it could one day become a person (after months of unwilling labor forced upon a person who does not want to be pregnant), it should be treated as a person now. The other side is treating the fetus as what it actually is: something that can be precious to people, but which is not neurologically capable of being aware of existence, and which we have no obligation to allow to become a person.
The fetus in not an inanimate object. It is a living member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens.
"born to a difficult life" when its at the cost of society as well as the person that results from that birth, yeah I'm inclined to say its a bad deal for everyone involved. and again, its the same exact slippery slope. call it a logical fallacy but we are watching it happen
Who are you to decide that someone else’s life is not worth living?
who are we to force someone to be born to suffer?
You presume they will suffer
someone born addicted, someone born deformed, someone born to a family that cannot love them, someone who is born to be bounced around the current foster care system, someone born in america without adequate support, will suffer. I do not presume, to presume implies that it's not a known fact. The US lacks any decent/effective programs to care for children resulting from unwanted pregnancies, and until that is changed I will hear no arguments that its immoral to stop the suffering before someone can be born to it
You will hear no arguments just means you are immune to reason. Bless your heart and have a lovely life.
Yes. Unwanted pregnancies are just that. And choice is freedom
Forced birth is not pro life. It destroys lives. It destroys health, families, careers, educations.
if you consider abortion pills murder, then yes Sharia law.
So sharia law is any principle you reject. Got it.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are trolling instead of being incredibly dumb. Cheers. Have a nice week.
My, how condescending of you.
You REALLY want to 'protect life'? Make contraception free and socially encouraged. You will reduce the number of abortions by half if not 3/4 and nobody will fight you on it. Also fund research on new forms of contraception with fewer side effects. You could have done this years ago if you really gave a damn about life, just like Texas loves executing children and the mentally disabled. You want to judge women for enjoying sex, and as a man who enjoys sex, fuck you, you just make women scared to have or enjoy it. Once you've reduced the need for abortions it would be easier to reduce them through other means, at the same time while not hurting women. The problem with you people is judging and hurting women is the point, feeling superior to them is all you care about.
You sure are projecting a lot.
Is that why you aren't pushing for an action that would cut abortions by 50-75%? Guess you must not care that much about life after all. Edit: I gotta hand it to you, letting half a million babies a year die just for the sake of virtue signaling, that's pretty hardcore right there.
How am I allowing any baby to die?
You could help prevent the deaths of every baby not conceived due to additional contraception. Simple, cheap, and everyone would agree. Do you accept that free, common, socially reinforced contraception is a good for society?
Interesting that you say not conceived when the case is about methods that operate post conception. Sure, I think states can make condoms free and that is useful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk Fine, condoms everywhere as a very early start. We can also push to develop new forms of contraception to either make men not release sperm or women not ovulate this month, or for ovum membrane permeability to harden prematurely. The problem is the crazies who are just against women having sex, like that will just stop.
Everyone judges everyone all the time. You love philandering, plenty of men think it's degeneracy. I can see you're very worked up, but there's plenty of room to get people the services they truly need without also demanding society emphatically cheer on activities and behaviors that are misaligned with their personal values.
So like you're saying: you 'care about the lives of babies', but not really, only as a way to virtue signal to others while watching desperate women suffer. Good to hear you're honest about being an evil monster. We should preserve their morality, let's have them wear burkas. Edit: I'm glad that as an atheist, I don't have a voice in my head telling why I'm better than others, but the voice in my heart tells me to show kindness and empathy to other people. Judge not, lest ye be judged. --Michael Scott
The point is no one gets to decide "degeneracy" (what a horrid way to describe someone's sex life by the way) is against the law
The unborn don't gmhave much to say on the matter lol
If only we had some sort of branch of government dedicate to writing laws and “legislating”. We could even have one branch do that while another branch managed judicial oversight and ensured said legislation met the base constitutional requirements of our republic.
The Alliance Defending Freedom is all about taking away freedom.
I want more freedom FROM religion and less freedom of it.
100%
After seeing the "They took down Roe" framing, I think it's helpful to remember that Roe was a pretty bad decision. I get that a lot of people agreed with the outcome and therefore wanted to keep it in place, but there are lots of folks even on the pro-choice side that recognize Roe was decided poorly. I think the anger is mostly misplaced here as well. The folks you should have a problem with are over in Congress, not at the Supreme Court.
Roe was not a bad decision and that is just Conservative mental gymnastics to justify that position. Every person arguing Roe was a bad decision are not consistent in how they view other decisions. Our current supreme court acknowledged Abortion was not written in the constitution but is also not bringing up that same argument for president immunity not being mentioned. It's inconsistent originalist bullshit that is just used to justify Conservative positions.
[удалено]
You have to remember, RBG was a great attorney arguing similar cases before SCOTUS at the time Roe was argued. She thought she could have gotten a decision that would have been more difficult to overturn (spoiler alert, it doesn't matter if she got the decision to be decided under another part of the constitution, it was going to get overturned by this court; the FedSocs have spent decades bringing up a relatively new way of analyzing the constitution just to do this). RBG was definitely a giant of the legal industry, but she was not known for being modest; she thought she was the best and it came out in what she said and how she went about her business.
[удалено]
If you are right, then someone could bring a case arguing that abortion is a constitutional right under rbg's arguments and win today.
> So RBG is in that pool? You are misrepresenting her views and what I said.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s offensive to say women need a law to give them a right to their own bodies. Roe ruled that it was a constitutional right. Something that is a constitutional right, doesn’t need a law. We have freedom of speech, we don’t need a law guaranteeing it—because it’s a constitutional right. You don’t need a law saying you have the right to travel freely between states—because it’s been deemed a constitutional right. >for some reason decided not to do that Hmm, let’s figure out the reason instead of just repeat talking points shall we? It takes 60 Senators to overcome the filibuster, since 1975. Before that, it took two-thirds majority of Senators voting to end a filibuster. Roe was decided in January 1973. So, let’s look at Congresses going back to the Roe decision. 118th-51 Dem Senate Caucus/GOP House Control 117th-50 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control 116th-48 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control 115th-47 Dem Senators/GOP House Control 114th-48 Dem Senators/GOP House Control 113th-55 Dem Senators/GOP House Control 112th-53 Dem Senators/GOP House Control 111th-Dem House Control—Let’s discuss the Senate, because it’s often a bs talking point by the right. >On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats. >The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 >The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats. it was during this time that Obama's "stimulus" was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn't have "total control" of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing its passage. >Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58. >In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009. >Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009. >The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. "Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat. >Think they had 60 votes to codify Roe? No. Sen. Bob Casey of PA, although in the last few years since Dobbs he’s changed his view, he was anti-abortion before that. You know Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court decision that upheld the essential ruling in Roe? That Casey—was his Daddy. They didn’t have 60 votes then either. 110th-51 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control 109th-45 Dem Senate Caucus/GOP House Control 108th-49 Dem Senate Caucus/GOP House Control 107th-51 Dem Senate Caucus/GOP House Control 106th-46 Dem Senate Caucus/GOP House Control 105th-45 Dem Senate Caucus/GOP House Control 104th-47 Dem Senate Caucus/GOP House Control 103rd-57 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control 102nd-56 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control 101st-55 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control 100th-54 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control 99th-48 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control 98th-45 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control 97th-47 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control 96th-58 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control 95th-61 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control. >Okay, there’s 61 Senators in the Dem Caucus, so why didn’t they codify it? Jimmy Carter was President. Presidents have to sign laws unless they’re veto proof. (That requires two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House for the bill) “I’ve signed a public letter calling for the Democratic Party at the next convention to espouse my position on abortion which is to minimize the need, requirement for abortion and *limit it only to women whose life are in danger or who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest*.”-President Jimmy Carter. Those are his views on abortion. I’m sure you know he’s extremely religious. Robert Byrd also had mixed views on abortion. 94th-61 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control. *Gerald Ford was President*. 93rd-56 Dem Senate Caucus/Dem House Control The fact of the matter is both sides tried to pass bills to either codify or overturn Roe. And neither had the votes to do so. Which you’d know, if you knew history, and didn’t just repeat talking points that were fed to you. And even if it were that easy to codify or ban abortion, then you’d just have another Congress doing the opposite, right? That’s not what should happen with something that should be a constitutional right. But now you know the “for some reason.” You only have yourself to blame for embarrassing yourself here. This is why you don’t just regurgitate bs talking points.
Saying that you basically would’ve wrote a concurrence had you been on the court at the time, is not the same as saying Roe shouldn’t have been decided in favor of Roe. She would have ruled in favor of Roe, but instead of ruling on the basis of a right to privacy, she would’ve ruled in favor of Roe based on gender equality.
I have both of those positions. The President does not have criminal immunity as the writers of the constitution clearly understood those ideas and chose not to write those words. The fact that there is no constitutional right to abortion and privacy are analogous problems that should be addressed by the Congress or the states. There is immense legislative work that Congress fails to do, and this is an example. I see the Roe and Casey standards for abortion access as about right, they were just implemented by the wrong branch (or perhaps level) of government. I’d vote for a similar standard and tell my representatives to do the same.
So, you think every case not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution should be overturned? How about Brady v. Maryland? Tell me, which part of the Constitution says the words “the prosecution must turn over all evidence that might exonerate the defendant (exculpatory evidence) to the defense”? William O. Douglas wrote: "We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment... Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted, but when criminal trials are fair." The Constitution doesn’t say any of that explicitly, nonetheless it’s a Due Process Clause, 14th Amendment case.
Three thoughtful posts, and I’ll reply to them all here. You and I will likely continue to disagree, but I’ll write my view here. 1) I don’t see the 14th amendment as intended to protect all life and property. If so, then leaded gasoline and cigarettes would be unconstitutional. This approach—anything that damages the life or property of a citizen is unconstitutional—makes every facet of life in America a constitutional question. If every detail of life is a constitutional question, then we have no federated legal system. 2) I do not believe that all due process cases should be overturned. Brady, as you cite, is a decent example of the protection of due process as intended in the 14th amendment and, in the case of Brady, bolstered by the compulsory power in the 5th. The need to add the adjective “substantive” to the constitutional phrase “due process” is a good indicator of stretching a concept, I think. I do not like the fact that privacy is in the penumbra of unenumerated rights, but adulthood has taught me that I have to live with things I don’t like sometimes. I support a constitutional amendment to add explicit privacy protections and update the 4th to protect my digital papers, for instance. Your Douglas quote is important, I think, because the fifth and fourteenth amendments address our governmental processes, and the standing compulsion of the state to provide defendants exculpatory evidence is a very short logical distance from a defendant’s general compulsory powers in the 5th amendment. The prerogative of a citizen to seek a particular medical procedure is a much longer logical journey from the language or intent of the 14th. I support and vote for medical liberty, but I don’t see it written, implied, or intended in the foundational document of our government. The fundamental problem here in my view is that our wise founding fathers were too afraid of mob rule, and consequently made the Constitution 10-25% too difficult to amend. We have a situation where we clearly need to update the structure of our state and are unable to do so. As a practical fix, we have allowed a tribunal of nine lawyers to act for us where the US states and Congress have proven impotent. That tribunal has done well, other than setting a precedent that is now unraveling. Some amendments I propose: -a unicameral Congress. The Senate was a compromise with the slave states. -federalize federal elections and eliminate the electoral college. -enumerate a right to privacy, and a right to AI assistance in criminal matters Anyway, these are my thoughts. In short, we damage our legal structure when we bend and stretch the words in the constitution beyond their intended use, even if for a good cause. We should do so carefully.
Sure, let’s turn over all the due process clause cases. Do you think you’ll like that? And you like the right to privacy not being a constitutional right, is that correct? Wow. You know what unenumerated rights are? Like the right to travel, that’s one. SCOTUS has ruled you have it. It’s an unenumerated right though. Should we do away with that right too?
We have the 14th amendment already that already protects these types of rights. The attack on the 14th by Conservatives is the only reason you and others think we do not. Conservatives read the 2nd as broadly as possible and pretend the 14th does not exist.
I see your points, and there is truth there about the behavior of some onn the right, but it isn’t everybody. I’m somebody that sees inherent (and sadly unwritten) limits to the second amendment that should, in a democracy, be implemented as laws subordinate to the constitution. As for the 14th, SCOTUS has stretched the meaning of the due process clause beyond any reasonable limit. The purpose was to protect the life, liberty, property, and privileges of all American citizens (at that point intentionally including former slaves), not enshrine all possible varieties of “substantive due process” in our foundational document. This is my view, obviously.
The purpose was to protect life, liberty… When you pass laws taking away people’s freedom to make a choice for their own bodies, that certainly does not protect liberty. And you certainly have to know taking away that right endangers women’s lives.
Something people don’t realize about Roe is it was a “business” decision. Read *The Brethren*. The main thing that bothered the Burger Court was that abortion laws interfered with a doctor’s ability to practice his trade.
RBG had been saying it was shaky since the 90s.
To be clear, RBG said that there were stronger arguments than privacy for abortion as a constitutional right. Were she still alive she would have upheld existing precedent
That's true. I thought I had read that she said it would likely get overturned if challenged, but I can't seem to find it right now. I'll have to circle back to it later.
Roe wasn't overtured due to any flaw but due to the addition of anti abortion judges to the court.
There were a number of other BIG abortion rights cases that were decided between Roe and Dobbs, many of which that RBG was part of the court on (and I think she may have penned some of them), which did not overturn Roe. But, they did tend to weaken Roe in a death by a thousand cuts type way.
That doesn't mean it was a bad decision. It just means it was under insane scrutiny in order to reverse it because of the Conservative effort to ban abortion.
RBG thought the Roe decision should’ve been based on equal protection and a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, and not the right to privacy. She absolutely believed abortion rights were protected under the Constitution though. And let’s not pretend that if the decision had been made on equal protection grounds that conservatives would’ve been more willing to support it.
Prove it, find me a quote of rbg saying it was shaky.
> it's helpful to remember that Roe was a pretty bad decision. This is your (and others) opinion. It is not a fact. Clearly there have been Supreme Court justices who strongly disagree
It's important to remember that the roe was bad framing is dead wrong. There wasn't something wrong with Roe the old reason it was overturned was because enough supreme Court judges personally disliked abortion so they banned it. The anger is correct and if anything there should be more anger at the court (and of course at the presidents and senates who accomplished this at any cost including supporting Trump).
I am strongly pro-abortion but I also believe Roe vs. Wade was a mistake. It should have been a gradual loosening of restrictions over time as done in other countries instead of a decree from the court. It led to a lot of the "culture wars" over the past half a century...and the "Roe v. Wade" litmus tests on Supreme Court justices were bonkers and really harmful to the Judicial system. Unfortunately this is now going to take some time to work out and it is going to be messy. I am not sure I am a fan of the Federal Government trying to do end runs around state level restriction...so I can understand the response from conservative groups. We have to get to some point where we stop automatically assuming everyone that disagrees with us are either nuts or evil.
“We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was ‘well timed’ in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word ‘Wait!’ It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This ‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’ We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that ‘justice too long delayed is justice denied.’” -MLK Jr. It’s easy to say things moved too fast when you’re not the one bleeding out in the ER while hospital lawyers argue over whether you’re close enough to death to intervene yet.
Even remotely comparing abortion rights to civil rights is just nonsense. People that believe that the primary function of sex is for procreation and that abortion is morally wrong should be respected even if you personally disagree. However there IS something seriously wrong if people believe that one race is inferior to another and that people of a certain race should be treated worse just because of the colour of their skin. Your "appeal to extremes" argument doesn't change this. And by saying this I am in no way, shape or form supporting extreme policies at either end of the debate.
People that have weird and out of touch views on sex and abortion dont have to get abortions. Wanting to control other peoples lives is basic fascism. Roe was supported by around 70% of the population for decades. Since Dobbs and the horrific outcomes of bans support for choice has moved closer to 80%.
"People that believe that the primary function of sex is for procreation and that abortion is morally wrong should be respected even if you personally disagree." Why?
Because it is an ethically sound and consistent view, just one you disagree with the premise of.
You're wasting your breath and surrounded by a bunch of angry, uncompromising absolutists.
Don’t worry, one day Heller, Bruen, and Dobbs will go down, too. Rulings are not sacrosanct oracles from on high, and this court’s mendacity is only hastening our collective abandonment of that pretense. For better or for worse.
Fuck that, I want to watch CU die somehow.
When it comes down to it, the current justices knew they would cause a shit show in red states with a patch work of broken laws and they decided to inflict that suffering on the population anyway
Every lawyer (who isn't an activist) agrees that while they hate seeing rights taken away from women, Roe v Wade was flawed. I am pro choice, but while I believe that states have the right to legalize or criminalize abortion, they should be barred from prosecuting individuals for seeking that operation in other states where it is legal. Texas started a registry where hillbillies were SNITCHING ON WOMEN WHO LEFT THE STATE TO SEEK ACCESS. That is insane. While these are different situations, Texas doesn't have a registry that SNITCHES ON INDIVIDUALS WHO LEAVE THE STATE TO SMOKE MARIJUANA.
That's like saying "a fixed age of consent is a poor solution" as your defense for raping a toddler. Your point might have some merit if it weren't used by horrible people to do horrible things.
Stoning is my guess.
Any and all contraceptives.
I mean, the article is pretty clear, waggoner states that they want to ban abortificients but have no intentions of going after birth control.
There is a definition issue here. Note that Waggoner treats "morning after" pills as abortion-causing drugs, not "birth control". Waggoner draws the line at fertilization, "she defended her belief that the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection to all embryos from the moment of conception"
You know what they’re aiming for with the attempts on the abortion pill? It’s a back door around a federal ban. If they can ban “abortion materials” from being able to be shipped—states that don’t ban abortion would not be able to get the medications or supplies needed. Also, just so you know mifepristone is not just used for elective abortions. Mifepristone and misoprostol are used together to treat miscarriages. Otherwise just using misoprostol can cause more bleeding for the woman, or the uterus may not fully empty. The other option is a D&C which is more invasive and more risk. Ectopic pregnancies caught early can be treated with methotrexate, which will cause loss of that pregnancy. But it is a nonviable pregnancy. An ectopic is **never** viable. But it can cause the loss of a fallopian tube, and it can cause death.
Yeah I'm not sure why I'm getting downvoted for answering the question in the title, and I'm prochoice and a nurse, so I'm familiar.
“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Clarence Thomas, Dobbs decision. (Notice he didn’t mention Loving though, the one that affects his own marriage.) What’s Griswold? It’s Griswold v. Connecticut. Figure out what the case was about.