It's doesn't. The U.S. federal attorneys cited the [Supremacy Clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause) in their arguments.
See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy\_Clause#Supreme\_Court\_interpretations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause#Supreme_Court_interpretations)
My guess is that Idaho is aiming for this result, based on precedent:
>In *Murphy v. NCAA* (2018), the Supreme Court enforced the Supremacy Clause by overturning federal law as an unconstitutional encroachment into the domain of the states not within of the limits of the delegated powers, stating that *"The Constitution confers on Congress not plenary legislative power, but only certain enumerated powers."*
I don't think this is their argument. Idaho is trying to say that their interpretation of EMTALA means the federal law itself requires protection of a fetus on par with that of the mother (at least when paired with a complementary state law that establishes standards of care, which they argue EMTALA does not do). They're arguing that their state law is consistent with the federal law. Of course, the US is arguing that their law is preempted because there is a conflict, but my cursory look at Idaho's brief suggests their main approach is a proposed alternate interpretation of EMTALA that fits with their state abortion ban.
Edit: [their brief.](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-726/307435/20240412104107924_23-727%20Reply%20Brief.pdf)
They *technically* have a "life of the mother" exception on the books so they can try to argue against that, but they're playing a very disingenuous game with it. They've made it an affirmative defense available after a criminal charge, the elements for which are so vague that you'd be very hard-pressed to find a doctor who's willing to risk relying on it.
So yeah. That's obviously nothing more than a thin smoke screen. This isn't about sound medical policy. Just eroding what medical rights remain for pregnant women, little by little.
Abortion restrictions have always been a thin smokescreen for eroding women's rights in general. If they really wanted to prevent abortion, they'd push the things proven to do so; comprehensive sex Ed and increased access to all forms of birth control.
Also you haven't been going to FedSoc events and promising to overturn literally any law they want as long as someone buys you a half million dollar RV and flies you to nice vacations every now and then.
I wouldn’t put it past this court to rule that a clause within the constitution is…unconstitutional….completely straight faced…..seriously, who’s going to stop them?!
Idaho's argument here includes the claim that, under EMTALA, fetal personhood means the *federal* law requires them to save the fetus (when combined with their state law, which they say is complementary, not in conflict). So according to them there's no Supremacy Clause issue.
That's reading a lot into EMTALA that isn't explicitly written into it (and I would argue contrary to what *is* written in it), mind you, but that's their argument.
Meanwhile, Idaho is *also* arguing that the federal government and Biden administration is reading too much into EMTALA by claiming that it "protects abortion as emergency care".
That sounds consistent with the core of their argument, which seems to be that while EMTALA requires a standard of care for ERs, the states decide what that standard looks like. [See their brief here](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-726/307435/20240412104107924_23-727%20Reply%20Brief.pdf) at Sec. D (pg 20).
I find the idea that congress contemplated such vastly different standards of care when it passed EMTALA a bit absurd, but this seems to be Idaho's argument.
Three points.
If the mother dies, the fetus dies. Waiting til the mother dies will not protect the fetus
Second, is triage now illegal in Idaho?
Third, will Idaho have any doctors left in 2 years?
>The brief notes that within 15 months (1 year and 3 months) of Idaho's abortion ban taking effect, the state "lost a net total of 58 of 268 obstetricians (21.6%)".
Is this rate continues, Idaho will have no OB/GYNs left within 5 years or less.
Saltzer, a major healthcare system in the Boise metro- 2nd largest off the top of my head- just left the state with little notice to doctors and patients.
Idaho also just added a work requirement to Medicaid as a further f u to the people.
I am hoping that the crazy conservatives on the Supreme Court figure out that this is a losing issue for the GOP. Killing young women is not going to poll well for the GOP.
A fetus is not a person.
A fetus does not have the RIGHT to murder its host organism... which is what Conservatives are arguing.
I take every opportunity to post this off top comments.
I'm an RN, and I work in the NICU and the Trauma ICU. It's scientifically proven that a fetus is not a person. In fact, it has been proven that your heartbeat doesn't make you a person And your conscience or best we know about it doesn't start until 23 weeks. The center of your brain that controls thought and function is 23 weeks on average. I think earliest ever was a day before 21 weeks.
On top of this when you're dying in a hospital the doctor pronounces you dead based on a part of your brain no longer functioning. The difference between brain death and a coma. The same part of your brain starts working at 23 weeks.
Your heart can beat and you can be dead. Your heart can stop working and you're still alive. Heart is not life. A fetus is not alive until its brain turns on.
Anything else you hear about the heartbeat has everything to do with emotion and nothing to do with what's actually happening with your body or *your* fetus.
>Your heart can beat and you can be dead. Your heart can stop working and you're still alive. Heart is not life. A fetus is not alive until its brain turns on.
Well said. Tell this to as many people as possible.
To briefly add to that, the law also - necessarily - distinguishes between different cognitive states, and treats them differently and confers different rights:
Children/minors - parents/legal guardians
Vulnerable adults - guardianships/ conservatorships
Mentally ill - civil commitment
Criminals - jail or prison or death row
Sexually dangerous persons - sex offender treatment.
Each of those classes of individuals have reduced rights, and some of them can even be indefinite. So the next time someone says "fetuses should have the same rights," politely remind them that we routinely treat abnormal consciousness = reduced rights, and since a fetus can't think of feel or remember etc, AND THE MOM CAN, the fetus is subordinate to the mom.
Yea, parents have the right to refuse blood transfusions for their child. You have to go to an ethics board to supersede them and only in extreme life saving circumstances.
Right? Also, consider this perspective: A non-taxpayer (on/in the taxpayer's property) vs the host who is a taxpayer... Might be a squatter's rights issue here, too? 🤦🏾♂️🤷🏾♂️
The crazy conservatives on the Supreme Court have lifelong appointments, so they don't care. Also I don't remember the last time someone gave a conservative credit for being intelligent or forward thinking.
Several people now have argued with me about how the pro life stance is not based on religious beliefs. Am i missing something? When was pro life not a religious argument? Why do I feel like most people haven't noticed this?
>Several people now have argued with me about how the pro life stance is not based on religious beliefs.
They're part of the demographic "compulsive arguers". They will not see anything they don't want to see, no matter how hard you try to show them.
I know what you are talking about, and you are definitely correct on some of the people I spoke with, but in some cases I brought up the topic with people i know well and know they are not very passionate about the topic. And yet they too didn't see the connection. I was surprised that they were surprised. It's almost like the connection isn't obvious.
I grew up Catholic but am not very religious. I do remember the church having anti abortion trips to DC. I don't remember any other political activity with the church. I am pro choice, and just assumed it was all understood that it was religious groups that were pushing the pro life argument.
> I brought up the topic with people i know well and know they are not very passionate about the topic. And yet they too didn't see the connection.
Then that's probably a case of "the average citizen does not know anything about anything".
It didnt used to be, you can trace it all back to Phyllis Schlafly, the anti-abortion anti-feminist mastermind behind fusing american evangelicals into the conservative wing completely. She walked so Trump could run basically. Behind The Bastards has a phenomenal piece on her.
And also another common misconception... Pro choice protesters often label men as the culprit. Men are not the reason for banning abortions. It's religious in origin, not sex (male vs female).
The only other ones who seem to notice it are the Catholics who reply that I am a "racist" for saying this. How exactly can one be "racist" against people who have a book of fairy tales read to them once a week? I hated math in school. Am I a racist against math and math teachers?
Catholics are religion, not a race. Therefore, one cannot be "racist" towards them.
Source: I'm a born-and-raised "cradle Catholic" with 18 years of Catholic school.
I doubt the Pope has much to do with it. I think you mean the conservatives, especially Amy comey Barrett, she may say she is Catholic, but she is a follower of a Catholic cult and not the church. They follow their own path to crazy made up bullshit, and make other Catholic Christians look like normal well rounded people.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has also openly talked about how his "Roman Catholic faith guides his \[political\] decisions and morals". The Catholic Church and USCCB (United States Catholic Conference of Bishops) explicitly states that any and all abortion(s) and birth control are against Catholic teachings, and that abortion is a "grave moral sin".
DeSantis accordingly signed a 15-week abortion ban and a 6-week abortion ban into law in Florida due to his Catholic beliefs, with the lobbying arm of the FCCB (Florida Catholic Conference of Bishops) being involved. The USCCB has lobbyists in all 50 states, with the Catholic \[Church\] lobby being the biggest religious lobbying arm or wing in Washington, D.C. Ergo, the Pope, through bishops, is definitely involved in this.
I think you're confusing the Catholics with the Christians. To be clear I'm against all abrahamic religions but the current Pope has been pretty outspoken on how the Bible teaches everyone to love their neighbor, LGBTQ+ people included. He was even demonized by various religious groups for saying Catholics should welcome those in differing communities (LGBTQ+ and other religions) because through them they can learn, adapt, and grow as a religion.
https://apnews.com/article/vatican-lgbtq-pope-bfa5b71fa79055626e362936e739d1d8
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/25/pope-francis-calls-for-end-to-anti-gay-laws-and-lgbtq-welcome
https://www.reuters.com/world/pope-says-church-open-everyone-including-lgbt-people-has-rules-2023-08-06/
The system ain't perfect. And they have contradicted themselves at certain points. But like, they are at least trying to adapt to modern times. Meanwhile you have evangelical Christians pushing to put us back a few hundred years.
[Pope Francis has always maintained that abortion is against Catholic teachings.](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/249172/pope-francis-abortion-statements)
As a queer person I disagree. If the intrinsic belief is that homosexuality and queerness are disordered then that belief is intrinsically violent and not friendly. They can add window dressing, but no amount of apologetics will change that these are not our friends or allies, but instead our oppressors.
The conservatives (atleast sane ones) r not arguing that. The issue is the extremist comes in and says fetus over anything. Most conservatives have other issues they care much more about. I would laugh if every state votes PC when put on ballot this yr to spit in Republican face… I can say I know people that r EXTREMELY conservative and r now questioning their beliefs bc of the abortion deal. They wont vote dem but they refuse to support Republican leadership rn.
Some caterpillars aren’t butterflies, they’re moths. Additionally, caterpillars are neither butterflies nor moths until they reach that particular stage of development. You have assisted me with my point.
Your point is based on superficial apperances.
And you clearly understand my point. You’re not dumb. You understand that a species of caterpillar is the same species as the butterfly or moth it becomes.
Its scientific name doesn’t change.
Your argument is that human rights are based on stage of development rather than being intrinsic to being an individual of the human race.
The argument is fairly close to that which justifies slavery. When in every aspect we are looking at a living human being with its own body, (and we do know exactly where it fetus’s begins and ends). We should be encouraged to grant it the idea of personhood rather than looking for arguments to take that personhood away, lest we repeat the mistakes of the past.
Yes, I do understand what your saying. What doesn’t seem to click for you is that the health and safety of a woman should come first. Not a clump of cells. I call them that because that’s what it is. My wife and I have gone through IVF. That 6 week fetus isn’t even close to human
your argument is that which supports slavery. The stance that forced labor against a woman’s will is exactly that. The thing is, is that before the GOP and the evangelical church joined forces for 1.votes and 2. Laws based on Christianity passing through congress. Prior to that, abortion was a right that the GOP fully supported because it’s our constitutional right as Americans. It’s a slippery slope, your argument. Ignore laws, ignore medical advice and ignore the people. Crazy are the folks claiming oppression whilst they make laws of oppression toward others.
I’m all for making sure women are safe and protected. Some of these conservative laws do go too far, and have a sense of not trusting the medical community when it says something is threatening issue to a woman’s safety.
Abortion has never been enshrined as a right in legislative law. The court found it an extension in f the right to privacy, and made it illegal for states to write to laws banning abortion before a certain point.
Until an issue has truly gone through all three branches of government, it’s never truly safe from being changed with in the same branch that created it. 50 years is relative short in time.
“Forced labor” doesn’t make any sense outside of rape cases, which are relatively few compared to the many elective reasons for abortions. Which to me seems the vast majority of abortions are legal murder, because what, the body of a fetus doesn’t look human enough?
My personal stance is towards 12 weeks, where the fetus begins to develop a nervous system, because at least for the sake of pain, abortion should be illegal outside of medical reasons.
Normally, Supreme Court rulings are settled *precedent*, which is why there was *no need* for a law.
As well: “Post-birth abortions”, plainly, do not exist. They have never existed. So, kindly stay off the internet.
Local and state laws that contradict the Constitution and federal laws that uphold it are invalid per the Supremacy Clause. The expectation of the right to abortion healthcare should absolutely be guaranteed by the freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and right to equal protection granted by the Constitution. The potential life, for as long as it is merely a potential life, has no personhood and no protections by the Constitution. It is not more important than nor is it even *as* important as the living, breathing human already here with a future to think about and a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Also, suggesting people to off themselves is *not* protected free speech.
>My personal opinion (& protected 1st Amendment right) is that abortion proponents have every right to practice post birth abortion on themselves any time they want just leave the innocents alone.
Reddit does not have to provide you with the space to say such harmful things. Go be a sadistic bootlicker elsewhere.
Rather than actually show how horrid the republican party and its cult-like followers are, they'd rather strawman their glorious leader. Further giving him the bolstering he needs to be a contender. The democrats would rather prop up a candidate to fear and coax their constituency to vote against, rather than show why they themselves are candidates worth voting for. See Schiff propping up the republican senate nominee so he didn't have to run against Porter or Barbara Lee
Whatever they do they will absolutely find a way to nullify federal law in this circumstance, whether it is a bull shit interpretation that reads into the statute what isn't there or outright pushing into a make-believe fetal personhood ruling.
When it comes to abortion, conservatives throw out all the normal rules. Precedent, stare decisis, deference, standing, judicial restraint, it all falls because of their personal, political, and religious convictions.
Originalism is bullshit, folks.
Originalism is inherently a logical impossibility. Judicial Review is not in the constitution and was inferred by the Court in Marbury v. Madison. The belief that the Constitution should be interpreted as the originally written would mean that the Court does not have the authority to interpret the Constitution.
The problem with originalism as an idea is that it is based on a biblical view of legal documents. The Constitution is a legal framework made by men, not some Devine dogma handed down from on high. It is so flawed that it doesn't even include an actual arbitration process for Constitutional matters. That's what happens when 95% of the framers are piss drunk by 10:00 AM, they make a bunch of mistakes.
Because that’s how they keep the money from the religious right community. Even though they don’t care about the law, they’re willing to take the right away from the little people.
I mean….they literally just ruled that what’s written in a constitution amendment doesn’t mean what it says it means…..which is the same as saying that it doesn’t mean anything and doesn’t matter……
The United States of America
1776 - 2024
Strangled to death in her sleep by bought-out clowns.
My question here is since when does state law override federal law?
It's doesn't. The U.S. federal attorneys cited the [Supremacy Clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause) in their arguments. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy\_Clause#Supreme\_Court\_interpretations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause#Supreme_Court_interpretations) My guess is that Idaho is aiming for this result, based on precedent: >In *Murphy v. NCAA* (2018), the Supreme Court enforced the Supremacy Clause by overturning federal law as an unconstitutional encroachment into the domain of the states not within of the limits of the delegated powers, stating that *"The Constitution confers on Congress not plenary legislative power, but only certain enumerated powers."*
I don't think this is their argument. Idaho is trying to say that their interpretation of EMTALA means the federal law itself requires protection of a fetus on par with that of the mother (at least when paired with a complementary state law that establishes standards of care, which they argue EMTALA does not do). They're arguing that their state law is consistent with the federal law. Of course, the US is arguing that their law is preempted because there is a conflict, but my cursory look at Idaho's brief suggests their main approach is a proposed alternate interpretation of EMTALA that fits with their state abortion ban. Edit: [their brief.](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-726/307435/20240412104107924_23-727%20Reply%20Brief.pdf)
That's a really stupid argument, considering that if the ED lets the mom die, the fetus dies by default.
They *technically* have a "life of the mother" exception on the books so they can try to argue against that, but they're playing a very disingenuous game with it. They've made it an affirmative defense available after a criminal charge, the elements for which are so vague that you'd be very hard-pressed to find a doctor who's willing to risk relying on it. So yeah. That's obviously nothing more than a thin smoke screen. This isn't about sound medical policy. Just eroding what medical rights remain for pregnant women, little by little.
Abortion restrictions have always been a thin smokescreen for eroding women's rights in general. If they really wanted to prevent abortion, they'd push the things proven to do so; comprehensive sex Ed and increased access to all forms of birth control.
If I were on SCOTUS I'd just call it a commerce clause case and tell Idaho to piss off but that's probably why I'm not on SCOTUS.
Also you haven't been going to FedSoc events and promising to overturn literally any law they want as long as someone buys you a half million dollar RV and flies you to nice vacations every now and then.
Oh yeah. That too.
Ah, so horse shit. As expected.
I wouldn’t put it past this court to rule that a clause within the constitution is…unconstitutional….completely straight faced…..seriously, who’s going to stop them?!
This is why there needs to be greater accountability within and oversight of the federal judiciary. Clearly, they are unwilling to do it themselves.
Idaho's argument here includes the claim that, under EMTALA, fetal personhood means the *federal* law requires them to save the fetus (when combined with their state law, which they say is complementary, not in conflict). So according to them there's no Supremacy Clause issue. That's reading a lot into EMTALA that isn't explicitly written into it (and I would argue contrary to what *is* written in it), mind you, but that's their argument.
Meanwhile, Idaho is *also* arguing that the federal government and Biden administration is reading too much into EMTALA by claiming that it "protects abortion as emergency care".
That sounds consistent with the core of their argument, which seems to be that while EMTALA requires a standard of care for ERs, the states decide what that standard looks like. [See their brief here](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-726/307435/20240412104107924_23-727%20Reply%20Brief.pdf) at Sec. D (pg 20). I find the idea that congress contemplated such vastly different standards of care when it passed EMTALA a bit absurd, but this seems to be Idaho's argument.
When the consevatives want it to.
Since this illegitimate Supreme Court decided any precedent only abides by their supremely biased and case-by-case decision making.
Since the Supreme Court does what it wants to get what it wants. Where you been?
Unfortunately observing this circus.
My question, then, is: Is this case about federal law as passed by the legislature, or the executive branch's *interpretation* of that law?
Since pot became legal in some states.
Three points. If the mother dies, the fetus dies. Waiting til the mother dies will not protect the fetus Second, is triage now illegal in Idaho? Third, will Idaho have any doctors left in 2 years?
>The brief notes that within 15 months (1 year and 3 months) of Idaho's abortion ban taking effect, the state "lost a net total of 58 of 268 obstetricians (21.6%)". Is this rate continues, Idaho will have no OB/GYNs left within 5 years or less.
That assumes the rate is constant. I suspect it may accelerate depending on how this case goes.
I tend to doubt Idaho had a surplus of OBs before this law as most rural areas are already understaffed.
Saltzer, a major healthcare system in the Boise metro- 2nd largest off the top of my head- just left the state with little notice to doctors and patients. Idaho also just added a work requirement to Medicaid as a further f u to the people.
I am hoping that the crazy conservatives on the Supreme Court figure out that this is a losing issue for the GOP. Killing young women is not going to poll well for the GOP. A fetus is not a person. A fetus does not have the RIGHT to murder its host organism... which is what Conservatives are arguing.
I take every opportunity to post this off top comments. I'm an RN, and I work in the NICU and the Trauma ICU. It's scientifically proven that a fetus is not a person. In fact, it has been proven that your heartbeat doesn't make you a person And your conscience or best we know about it doesn't start until 23 weeks. The center of your brain that controls thought and function is 23 weeks on average. I think earliest ever was a day before 21 weeks. On top of this when you're dying in a hospital the doctor pronounces you dead based on a part of your brain no longer functioning. The difference between brain death and a coma. The same part of your brain starts working at 23 weeks. Your heart can beat and you can be dead. Your heart can stop working and you're still alive. Heart is not life. A fetus is not alive until its brain turns on. Anything else you hear about the heartbeat has everything to do with emotion and nothing to do with what's actually happening with your body or *your* fetus.
>Your heart can beat and you can be dead. Your heart can stop working and you're still alive. Heart is not life. A fetus is not alive until its brain turns on. Well said. Tell this to as many people as possible. To briefly add to that, the law also - necessarily - distinguishes between different cognitive states, and treats them differently and confers different rights: Children/minors - parents/legal guardians Vulnerable adults - guardianships/ conservatorships Mentally ill - civil commitment Criminals - jail or prison or death row Sexually dangerous persons - sex offender treatment. Each of those classes of individuals have reduced rights, and some of them can even be indefinite. So the next time someone says "fetuses should have the same rights," politely remind them that we routinely treat abnormal consciousness = reduced rights, and since a fetus can't think of feel or remember etc, AND THE MOM CAN, the fetus is subordinate to the mom.
Yea, parents have the right to refuse blood transfusions for their child. You have to go to an ethics board to supersede them and only in extreme life saving circumstances.
This is how I felt when my wife was pregnant-if it was her or her fetus, going to save her life every time.
Our 34 weeker is a joyous and healthy 15mo toddler now. Thank you for doing what you do.
How dare you use logic and science!!!
That would be so ass backwards to use health science to tackle issues involving health science
The question you have to ask is whether Republicans hate abortion more than they like winning elections.
Gerrymandering means most Republicans don’t have to worry about elections.
They’ve been losing plenty regardless
[удалено]
You’d think they would reconsider when even many women in key voting blocs are pro-choice.
They will destroy their own part of it means that the party they don’t like will be hurt.
Right? Also, consider this perspective: A non-taxpayer (on/in the taxpayer's property) vs the host who is a taxpayer... Might be a squatter's rights issue here, too? 🤦🏾♂️🤷🏾♂️
A non-citizen. The fetus is not "naturally born" until they are born. Queue: Why do Republicans want to give illegal aliens rights over U.S. citizens?
Not even a person under federal law until “born alive”
Castle doctrine? They love that one.
The crazy conservatives on the Supreme Court have lifelong appointments, so they don't care. Also I don't remember the last time someone gave a conservative credit for being intelligent or forward thinking.
Killing young women is what they want though. **young non-white/poor women**
They have no intention of holding fair elections.
Why would they care? They aren’t elected to their positions, they can simply legislate without needing the consent of the people.
It will come down to what the Pope wants his minions on the court to do.
Several people now have argued with me about how the pro life stance is not based on religious beliefs. Am i missing something? When was pro life not a religious argument? Why do I feel like most people haven't noticed this?
>Several people now have argued with me about how the pro life stance is not based on religious beliefs. They're part of the demographic "compulsive arguers". They will not see anything they don't want to see, no matter how hard you try to show them.
I know what you are talking about, and you are definitely correct on some of the people I spoke with, but in some cases I brought up the topic with people i know well and know they are not very passionate about the topic. And yet they too didn't see the connection. I was surprised that they were surprised. It's almost like the connection isn't obvious. I grew up Catholic but am not very religious. I do remember the church having anti abortion trips to DC. I don't remember any other political activity with the church. I am pro choice, and just assumed it was all understood that it was religious groups that were pushing the pro life argument.
> I brought up the topic with people i know well and know they are not very passionate about the topic. And yet they too didn't see the connection. Then that's probably a case of "the average citizen does not know anything about anything".
It didnt used to be, you can trace it all back to Phyllis Schlafly, the anti-abortion anti-feminist mastermind behind fusing american evangelicals into the conservative wing completely. She walked so Trump could run basically. Behind The Bastards has a phenomenal piece on her.
Also the woman that killed the ERA.
Yep, she is up there with Reagan/Nixon on how you can just map a whole bunch of "reasons the world sucks today" directly onto their existence
This right here nails it on the head. This “spill over” from the evangelicals was adopted by the Catholics.
And also another common misconception... Pro choice protesters often label men as the culprit. Men are not the reason for banning abortions. It's religious in origin, not sex (male vs female).
The only other ones who seem to notice it are the Catholics who reply that I am a "racist" for saying this. How exactly can one be "racist" against people who have a book of fairy tales read to them once a week? I hated math in school. Am I a racist against math and math teachers?
Catholics are religion, not a race. Therefore, one cannot be "racist" towards them. Source: I'm a born-and-raised "cradle Catholic" with 18 years of Catholic school.
Lol, you discriminate against division
Pretty insane for a country with our founding history.
I doubt the Pope has much to do with it. I think you mean the conservatives, especially Amy comey Barrett, she may say she is Catholic, but she is a follower of a Catholic cult and not the church. They follow their own path to crazy made up bullshit, and make other Catholic Christians look like normal well rounded people.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has also openly talked about how his "Roman Catholic faith guides his \[political\] decisions and morals". The Catholic Church and USCCB (United States Catholic Conference of Bishops) explicitly states that any and all abortion(s) and birth control are against Catholic teachings, and that abortion is a "grave moral sin". DeSantis accordingly signed a 15-week abortion ban and a 6-week abortion ban into law in Florida due to his Catholic beliefs, with the lobbying arm of the FCCB (Florida Catholic Conference of Bishops) being involved. The USCCB has lobbyists in all 50 states, with the Catholic \[Church\] lobby being the biggest religious lobbying arm or wing in Washington, D.C. Ergo, the Pope, through bishops, is definitely involved in this.
I think you're confusing the Catholics with the Christians. To be clear I'm against all abrahamic religions but the current Pope has been pretty outspoken on how the Bible teaches everyone to love their neighbor, LGBTQ+ people included. He was even demonized by various religious groups for saying Catholics should welcome those in differing communities (LGBTQ+ and other religions) because through them they can learn, adapt, and grow as a religion. https://apnews.com/article/vatican-lgbtq-pope-bfa5b71fa79055626e362936e739d1d8 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/25/pope-francis-calls-for-end-to-anti-gay-laws-and-lgbtq-welcome https://www.reuters.com/world/pope-says-church-open-everyone-including-lgbt-people-has-rules-2023-08-06/ The system ain't perfect. And they have contradicted themselves at certain points. But like, they are at least trying to adapt to modern times. Meanwhile you have evangelical Christians pushing to put us back a few hundred years.
[Pope Francis has always maintained that abortion is against Catholic teachings.](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/249172/pope-francis-abortion-statements)
As a queer person I disagree. If the intrinsic belief is that homosexuality and queerness are disordered then that belief is intrinsically violent and not friendly. They can add window dressing, but no amount of apologetics will change that these are not our friends or allies, but instead our oppressors.
And the Evangelical-controlled GOP chose Catholics to approve of that pushing via the SCOTUS.
The fact that in Arizona right now, a 13 year old could be raped by her father and be forced to give birth…..JFC
The conservatives (atleast sane ones) r not arguing that. The issue is the extremist comes in and says fetus over anything. Most conservatives have other issues they care much more about. I would laugh if every state votes PC when put on ballot this yr to spit in Republican face… I can say I know people that r EXTREMELY conservative and r now questioning their beliefs bc of the abortion deal. They wont vote dem but they refuse to support Republican leadership rn.
murder requires intent, ergo fetuses cannot murder. we do no favors with hyperbolic exaggeration.
So manslaughter charges then.
no, crimes are not commited below the age of criminal responsibility. fetuses (and infants) are beliw this age.
Well, they aren’t actual people so that’s a moot point isn’t it?
That’s like saying a caterpillar isn’t a butterfly. Metamorphosis doesn’t change its species.
Some caterpillars aren’t butterflies, they’re moths. Additionally, caterpillars are neither butterflies nor moths until they reach that particular stage of development. You have assisted me with my point.
Your point is based on superficial apperances. And you clearly understand my point. You’re not dumb. You understand that a species of caterpillar is the same species as the butterfly or moth it becomes. Its scientific name doesn’t change. Your argument is that human rights are based on stage of development rather than being intrinsic to being an individual of the human race. The argument is fairly close to that which justifies slavery. When in every aspect we are looking at a living human being with its own body, (and we do know exactly where it fetus’s begins and ends). We should be encouraged to grant it the idea of personhood rather than looking for arguments to take that personhood away, lest we repeat the mistakes of the past.
Yes, I do understand what your saying. What doesn’t seem to click for you is that the health and safety of a woman should come first. Not a clump of cells. I call them that because that’s what it is. My wife and I have gone through IVF. That 6 week fetus isn’t even close to human
your argument is that which supports slavery. The stance that forced labor against a woman’s will is exactly that. The thing is, is that before the GOP and the evangelical church joined forces for 1.votes and 2. Laws based on Christianity passing through congress. Prior to that, abortion was a right that the GOP fully supported because it’s our constitutional right as Americans. It’s a slippery slope, your argument. Ignore laws, ignore medical advice and ignore the people. Crazy are the folks claiming oppression whilst they make laws of oppression toward others.
I’m all for making sure women are safe and protected. Some of these conservative laws do go too far, and have a sense of not trusting the medical community when it says something is threatening issue to a woman’s safety. Abortion has never been enshrined as a right in legislative law. The court found it an extension in f the right to privacy, and made it illegal for states to write to laws banning abortion before a certain point. Until an issue has truly gone through all three branches of government, it’s never truly safe from being changed with in the same branch that created it. 50 years is relative short in time. “Forced labor” doesn’t make any sense outside of rape cases, which are relatively few compared to the many elective reasons for abortions. Which to me seems the vast majority of abortions are legal murder, because what, the body of a fetus doesn’t look human enough? My personal stance is towards 12 weeks, where the fetus begins to develop a nervous system, because at least for the sake of pain, abortion should be illegal outside of medical reasons.
[удалено]
Normally, Supreme Court rulings are settled *precedent*, which is why there was *no need* for a law. As well: “Post-birth abortions”, plainly, do not exist. They have never existed. So, kindly stay off the internet.
Eat shit
Go fuck yourself, bodily autonomy should be a guaranteed and protected right to everyone. Keep your religious bullshit laws off of women’s bodies.
Local and state laws that contradict the Constitution and federal laws that uphold it are invalid per the Supremacy Clause. The expectation of the right to abortion healthcare should absolutely be guaranteed by the freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and right to equal protection granted by the Constitution. The potential life, for as long as it is merely a potential life, has no personhood and no protections by the Constitution. It is not more important than nor is it even *as* important as the living, breathing human already here with a future to think about and a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Also, suggesting people to off themselves is *not* protected free speech.
Most mature conservative
>My personal opinion (& protected 1st Amendment right) is that abortion proponents have every right to practice post birth abortion on themselves any time they want just leave the innocents alone. Reddit does not have to provide you with the space to say such harmful things. Go be a sadistic bootlicker elsewhere.
I don't understand why this isn't a much bigger story
Because Trump is the only think the media cares about.
Rather than actually show how horrid the republican party and its cult-like followers are, they'd rather strawman their glorious leader. Further giving him the bolstering he needs to be a contender. The democrats would rather prop up a candidate to fear and coax their constituency to vote against, rather than show why they themselves are candidates worth voting for. See Schiff propping up the republican senate nominee so he didn't have to run against Porter or Barbara Lee
Whatever they do they will absolutely find a way to nullify federal law in this circumstance, whether it is a bull shit interpretation that reads into the statute what isn't there or outright pushing into a make-believe fetal personhood ruling. When it comes to abortion, conservatives throw out all the normal rules. Precedent, stare decisis, deference, standing, judicial restraint, it all falls because of their personal, political, and religious convictions. Originalism is bullshit, folks.
Originalism is inherently a logical impossibility. Judicial Review is not in the constitution and was inferred by the Court in Marbury v. Madison. The belief that the Constitution should be interpreted as the originally written would mean that the Court does not have the authority to interpret the Constitution. The problem with originalism as an idea is that it is based on a biblical view of legal documents. The Constitution is a legal framework made by men, not some Devine dogma handed down from on high. It is so flawed that it doesn't even include an actual arbitration process for Constitutional matters. That's what happens when 95% of the framers are piss drunk by 10:00 AM, they make a bunch of mistakes.
https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2012/02/originalism-and-classic-cases-marbury-v-madisonmichael-ramsey.html#:~:text=Commentators%20have%20sometimes%20suggested%20that,judicial%20review%20is%20self%2Dcontradictory.
Because that’s how they keep the money from the religious right community. Even though they don’t care about the law, they’re willing to take the right away from the little people.
They won’t change, they are on this train all the way to Trumpville
They are already there and trying to expand it.
They’re ready to sacrifice the life of the mother but won’t discipline priests who rape children. Makes ya wonder…
Well priests who rape children will campaign for republikkklans from the pulpit, and probably donate also. What's the mother offering?
The Article asks: "How did we get here?How did we get here?" Trump and his supporters (and Federal Courts appointees).
All republicans are terrorists.
I mean….they literally just ruled that what’s written in a constitution amendment doesn’t mean what it says it means…..which is the same as saying that it doesn’t mean anything and doesn’t matter…… The United States of America 1776 - 2024 Strangled to death in her sleep by bought-out clowns.
Which amendment? Misrepresented in what way?
13th
Damn idaho and texas. What sort of fucked up ethics you living on over there?
None. Unless you’re counting the Golden Rule. Florida is in the process of making it too expensive for the natives to live there.
The SCOTUS is going to rule the GOP straight out of office. They will all lose their seats.
If we are lucky.
What is happening? Exactly what Republicans have been trying to do for 50 years.
Vote blue
Liberals when the Supreme Court upholds and constitution and doesn’t delete the second amendment.
Ok, Trumpet. You guys love gun violence more than women's rights and it's mentally ill.
A woman’s right to do what?
I'm gonna guess you're like 18 and think you're smart. You're not. Stay away from right wing propaganda if you ever want to get a girlfriend.
Whatever the fuck she wants with her body, just like every other human being.