Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Tina Smith of Minnesota are calling on President Joe Biden to declare a public health emergency as almost half the states move to ban abortion following the overturning of Roe v Wade.
Ending the constitutional right to abortion has brought the nation to “a perilous time that threatens millions of women,” Warren and Smith wrote in the [New York Times] op-ed, adding that now "the government — not the person who is pregnant — will make the critical decision about whether to continue a pregnancy." NBC News link

I feel very badly for women who had abortions planned and now may be unable to have the procedure. It's a life-changing event of seismic proportions. It just doesn't seem at all fair. :(
 
I thought you were better than that?

Doesn't SCOTUS rule on law and the constitution? Were they wrong or do you disagree simply because you don't like the ruling?

When the same sex marriage law was passed, I heard that it's the law of the land and the courts have spoken so everyone needs to be an adult and accept the ruling of the high court.

Does the ruling of the high court only count if you and yours agree with it?

Is that why democrats are now whining and moaning that the court is not legitimate and it must be dismantled or left members added to make the decision "right"?

And democrats complain that the GOP is a threat to democracy.

Suck it up buttercup. Law of the land. The court has spoken.

Same sex marriage GRANTED MORE rights to people. Annulling R v W takes AWAY a right.

Same sex marriage secures a right to two consenting adults. Annulling R v W removes a right from an UNconsenting adult. See if you can spot the difference.
 
Looks like just over half the states are prepared to effectively outlaw abortion thanks to SCOTUS.

  • Alabama—Pre-Roe ban, Near-total ban, State constitution bars protection
  • Arizona—Pre-Roe ban
  • Arkansas—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban, Near-total ban
  • Georgia—Six-week ban
  • Idaho—Trigger ban, Six-week ban
  • Iowa—Six-week ban
  • Kentucky—Trigger ban, Six-week ban
  • Louisiana—Trigger ban, Near-total ban, Six-week ban, State constitution bars protection
  • Michigan—Pre-Roe ban
  • Mississippi—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban, Six-week ban
  • Missouri—Trigger ban, Eight-week ban
  • North Dakota—Trigger ban, Six-week ban
  • Ohio—Six-week ban
  • Oklahoma—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban (effective November 1, 2021), Near-total ban, Six-week ban
  • South Carolina—Six-week ban
  • South Dakota—Trigger ban
  • Tennessee—Trigger ban, Six-week ban, State constitution bars protection
  • Texas—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban, Six-week ban
  • Utah—Trigger ban, Near-total ban
  • West Virginia—Pre-Roe ban, State constitution bars protection
  • Wisconsin—Pre-Roe ban
  • Wyoming—Trigger ban

The six week ban outlaws abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Pre-Roe bans are laws that prohibited abortion and were never removed after the original Roe v Wade ruling by SCOTUS. Trigger bans are laws designed to take effect if and when Roe v Wade was overturned.

Source is the Guttmacher institute. Link
 

Attachments

  • Red states.jpg
    Red states.jpg
    70.5 KB · Views: 9
Apparently, judging by the AP map below (source is the Guttmacher Institute) abortion will be permitted in about twenty states, banned in twenty, yet to be decided in ten. AP reports Alabama has one of the toughest anti-abortion laws:
Abortions became almost entirely illegal in Alabama on Friday. A 2019 state abortion ban took effect making it a felony to perform an abortion at any stage of pregnancy, with no exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. All three clinics stopped providing abortions Friday morning under fear of prosecution under the 1951 state law...Doctors who violate the law could face up to 99 years in prison. AP News link

The one exception Alabama makes is if continuing the pregnancy would endanger the mother's health.
 

Attachments

  • Permit Ban Undecided.jpg
    Permit Ban Undecided.jpg
    76 KB · Views: 16
If y'all think this is all they want - to overturn Roe v Wade, think again. They will be going after other precedents as well.

Griswold v Connecticut (the right to use contraception)
Lawrence v. Texas (the right to same-sex intimacy)
Obergefell v. Hodges (the right to same sex marriage)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...-landmark-rulings-legalized-contrac-rcna35228

The corrupt sex-pest, Justice Clarence Thomas has made this clear in his concurring opinions, effectively inviting anyone to bring cases that might lead to the overturning of those precedents.

If Lawrence v Texas were to be overturned, homosexuality will once again be a criminal offence in Texas - (its already Texas law but currently unenforceable) but would immediately become enforceable if Lawrence v Texas were to be overturned

You can be 100% certain that if were to happen, a whole bunch of peckerwood redneck states like Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee etc will follow suit!
 
Since this seems to be the politics thread on the overturning, here are my thoughts:

1. This should be a big shot in the arm to statewide Democratic parties in moderate red states to moderate blue states. While there is not a lot of focus on the states yet, that is the new battleground on abortion, and it is far from certain that favors the Republicans.

2. Should be somewhat problematic for the GOP with the single-issue anti-abortion crowd. Once you win the war, the need for you evaporates as Winston Churchill discovered.

3. Obviously every other political wind favors the Republicans nationally, but this does seem to be a case where the focus should be local anyway.
 
Last edited:
Actually ... not in America... they get what the Electoral College and gerrymandering chicanery gives them.

Edit to add: and of course the SCOTUS itself when they decide who is president.

This reply was in response to my, "A People gets the Government it deserves." Yet in your post immediately preceding the quoted, you point out how the Dems warrant blame for not legislating when they had the opportunity. In a fashion, therefore, you agree with me.

I should clarify the a People comprises the totality of a population. If a political system has 'evolved' to the point where unfair and nefarious means are employed by one side, it is the result of the combination of the unscrupulous and the inattentive folk across society. The fairer side has not fought hard enough, and so they 'deserve' the fruits of their lackadaisical inattenriveness.

Democracy and progress must ever be fought for. Americans are discovering--possibly too late--that vigilance can never be relaxed. Taking for granted the comparative calm of the post WW2 period has resulted in the losing sight of the way ructious upheaval is historically cyclical.
 
Since this seems to be the politics thread on the overturning, here are my thoughts:

1. This should be a big shot in the arm to statewide Democratic parties in moderate red states to moderate blue states. While there is not a lot of focus on the states yet, that is the new battleground on abortion, and it is far from certain that favors the Republicans.

2. Should be somewhat problematic for the GOP with the single-issue anti-abortion crowd. Once you win the war, the need for you evaporates as Winston Churchill discovered.

3. Obviously every other political wind favors the Republicans nationally, but this does seem to be a case where the focus should be local anyway.

I agree.
About 2. , I think the only problem is the time it will take to find another single -issue topic that GOP voters will be told they were always passionate about. Drag Queens seem to be latest&greatest threat to the Most Christian Nation.

I also think that anti-abortionists will try to take the Fight federally, with pushing for bills in Congress that would ban abortion in the Blue Baby Killer States.
 
I thought you were better than that?

Doesn't SCOTUS rule on law and the constitution? Were they wrong or do you disagree simply because you don't like the ruling?

When the same sex marriage law was passed, I heard that it's the law of the land and the courts have spoken so everyone needs to be an adult and accept the ruling of the high court.

Does the ruling of the high court only count if you and yours agree with it?

Is that why democrats are now whining and moaning that the court is not legitimate and it must be dismantled or left members added to make the decision "right"?

And democrats complain that the GOP is a threat to democracy.

Suck it up buttercup. Law of the land. The court has spoken.

This court is reversing what it had formerly settled. This court is not taking to heart to "Suck it up, Buttercup." This court is not accepting what had been the "law of the land."

You are disregarding history, treating this particular court as though it's the first to rule on the matter.

And it appears other reversals of what were formerly the laws of the land will come in short order. This court is politically activist to a degree beyond what the right would accuse of a left leaning court. Actually stripping away rights formerly granted is heinous. If nothing else, it delegitimises the court by effectively stating it cannot make up its mind, engaging in whip-saw lurches between progress and retrenchment. This court is spitting on its former jurists.

I hold this court in contempt of the nation. It has become a tool of a political party, evoking shades of the frantic People's Court in that fatal spasm of early '40s Germany.
 
Last edited:
I've been thinking a bit about this, and I think this is an important point. Much of conservative support comes from those who are convinced that "liberal" government is meddlesome, complex, and expensive. But that's really because repression is applied only to certain parties.

I think one way around this would be malicious compliance. If the state owns your uterus, demand in writing permission to use it. Demand written guarantees that your gynecologist may have access to government property. Demand that, if it's illegal to cross state lines for an abortion, the state issue a paper granting you permission to cross state lines without search and seizure. Demand a written declaration of what measures are required or forbidden for a fertile woman to perform on her body in anticipation that an embryo that does not exist but might at some future time will find a welcome. Everything should be in writing. If the state wants to own our bodies, then it damned well better put its money where its mouth is. That should include by default that any medical procedure involving the reproductive system that is required for the health of any person should be the sole responsibility of the government that has asserted ownership.

In a state like Texas, where every neighbor of every potentially pregnant woman apparently has standing to initiate a lawsuit based on the suspicion of abortion, every potentially pregnant woman who is not planning an abortion should be able to phone every neighbor every night to assure them of this fact.

If birth control is made illegal, men should demand in writing permission to wear socks to bed. Demand written codes on what it is and is not legal to wear in case of sex, and be prepared to file complaints against anyone suspected of not following the codes. Hat colors, pajama styles. There should be a written guarantee that premature ejaculation, for example, is not grounds for criminal charges. Demand written clarification of whether vasectomy is permitted. After all, vasectomy is as much a physical barrier to the passage of sperm as other birth control.

Demand that agencies be established to codify and issue permits for activities, and that specifics be established for all of them, and printed. The administration of these laws should be expensive and complex.

If stupidity carried a financial or inconvenience expense to its promoters even a fraction of the emotional, spiritual, cultural expense it imposes on its victims, it would be dead in the water.

I like the thrust of this.
 
If the SCOTUS goes on a tear to hand back control of more and more rights to the States, the already dis-United States of America will only become further Balkanized. I just cannot see how such a hodgepodge could remain as a homogenous nation working toward a common future.
 
If the SCOTUS goes on a tear to hand back control of more and more rights to the States, the already dis-United States of America will only become further Balkanized. I just cannot see how such a hodgepodge could remain as a homogenous nation working toward a common future.

Cut them peckerwoods in the South-East loose I say, let 'em have their straight, white, racist, Christian promised land. California, Oregon, Washington and Nevada together would make a viable country, as would Delaware, Maryland, New York, New Hersey and the New England states together.
 
I welcome the decision as a long-overdue step toward removing the ugly, sickening stain of abortion from our country. Over 95% of abortions are performed purely for convenience (i.e., elective abortion), not because of rape, incest, or endangerment. The science of embryology has destroyed all justifications for elective abortion.

If there's been no rape or incest, and if there's no endangerment, then no mother has a "right" to kill her own baby. How can any humane, enlightened person believe otherwise? How can any humane person believe that a mother has a "right" to kill her own child merely because she "wasn't planning on having a baby" or because "a baby doesn't fit into her life plans"?

Abortion makes slavery look like child's play. Slavery killed tens of thousands of people over the course of 89 years in the U.S. (1776-1865). Abortion has killed at least 25 million babies since the Supreme Court ignored all precedent and the Constitution in Roe v. Wade.
 
I welcome the decision as a long-overdue step toward removing the ugly, sickening stain of abortion from our country. Over 95% of abortions are performed purely for convenience (i.e., elective abortion), not because of rape, incest, or endangerment. The science of embryology has destroyed all justifications for elective abortion.

If there's been no rape or incest, and if there's no endangerment, then no mother has a "right" to kill her own baby. How can any humane, enlightened person believe otherwise? How can any humane person believe that a mother has a "right" to kill her own child merely because she "wasn't planning on having a baby" or because "a baby doesn't fit into her life plans"?

Abortion makes slavery look like child's play. Slavery killed tens of thousands of people over the course of 89 years in the U.S. (1776-1865). Abortion has killed at least 25 million babies since the Supreme Court ignored all precedent and the Constitution in Roe v. Wade.

so in your opinion, it's a baby right after fertilization?
Or maybe before?
 
I welcome the decision as a long-overdue step toward removing the ugly, sickening stain of abortion from our country. Over 95% of abortions are performed purely for convenience (i.e., elective abortion), not because of rape, incest, or endangerment. The science of embryology has destroyed all justifications for elective abortion.

If there's been no rape or incest, and if there's no endangerment, then no mother has a "right" to kill her own baby. How can any humane, enlightened person believe otherwise? How can any humane person believe that a mother has a "right" to kill her own child merely because she "wasn't planning on having a baby" or because "a baby doesn't fit into her life plans"?

Abortion makes slavery look like child's play. Slavery killed tens of thousands of people over the course of 89 years in the U.S. (1776-1865). Abortion has killed at least 25 million babies since the Supreme Court ignored all precedent and the Constitution in Roe v. Wade.

So would you make intra-uterine contraceptive devices and oral contraceptives illegal because they cause the 'death' of the ferlilised ovum?
 
So would you make intra-uterine contraceptive devices and oral contraceptives illegal because they cause the 'death' of the ferlilised ovum?
Bet your life they would ban just such a device.
Actually are they a meat eater?
Because they might consider all mammalian life sacrosanct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom