• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

Status
Not open for further replies.
I never thought I would say this, but I would support BIden saying, vis a vis the EPA decision:

"Mr Roberts has made his decision. Let him enforce it".
 
shuttlt said:
Maybe. Do all protections have to be federal and tied to constitutional rights? If it's a big issue, it might well be much easier for the states where it is an issue to ban it.
Click to expand...

What predictions? States with anti-abortion laws are already forcing people to use their bodies to save “individuals”, as Zig puts it, who aren’t even legally people.
 
Ziggurat said:
Sure there is. Win elections.
Click to expand...
Great... all the democrats have to do is overcome the gerrymandering and voter suppression taking place in various red states, limit the influence of "big money" campaign donors, deal with an electoral college that seems to give more preference to cows than people, and magically keep countries like Russia from interfering in future elections.

I'm sure the supreme court would be more than willing to help with some of those. Oh, wait, they already had their say, and their response was "go ahead and suppress all those minority votes and gerrymander away. We don't care."
This isn't about parties. It's about you. Do YOU believe in democracy? dudalb apparently doesn't. If you only believe in democracy when you're winning elections, then you don't really believe in democracy.
Click to expand...
At the risk of speaking for dudalb, I rather suspect he DOES believe in democracy. He just seems to have problems with elements of the American system that are currently being exhibited, which is no longer characterized as a 'full democracy' and is rapidly going down the toilet.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
No, it's not starting to happen. Even the headline should have clued you in.

St. Luke’s Health Kansas City said in a statement Wednesday that it would resume offering the medication known as the morning after pill, a day after it told The Kansas City Star that its Missouri hospitals would halt emergency contraception.

It did so after the state's attorney general issued a statement stating unequivicolly that emergency contraception is not illegal under an abortion ban that was enacted minutes after Friday's U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade. The Missouri law bans all abortions except in cases of medical emergency.​
Click to expand...
First of all, the fact that the a hospital (an organization that probably has decent legal experts on staff) was concerned about dispensing the morning after pill should make a rational person a bit nervous, since it indicates a law that is vague.

Secondly... why should anyone trust the Attorney general? He's a Republican... a member of the party that has decided that women cannot control their own bodies. It certainly would not be out of character for them to change their opinion in the near future if the members of Y'all Quaeda raise a big-enough fuss.
 
slyjoe said:
In related news, the SC didn't take up NY vaccine mandate order.

Clarence Thomas, on an abortion-related roll, diseented:



I seriously think Thomas has jumped the shark.

ETA: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...-covid-vaccines-are-made-cells-abor-rcna36156
Click to expand...
Could you explain how he is wrong? The only quote they have from him in the article is "because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children". The article goes on to explain "The fetal tissue used in these processes came from elective abortions that happened decades ago. But the cells have since replicated many times, so none of the original tissue is involved in the making of modern vaccines.".

They add in a claim that the cells that are currently being used are from foetal tissue and debunk his statement based on that. Their quote from him doesn't make that claim though. They also equivocate from his statement of "developed using" to "manufactured from".

This is pretty typical of the way fact checkers operate where they debunk a claim that is more specific, or otherwise altered, from the statement that they are ostensibly debunking.

Does he actually make the claim they debunk anywhere?
 
Ziggurat said:
This isn't about parties. It's about you. Do YOU believe in democracy? dudalb apparently doesn't. If you only believe in democracy when you're winning elections, then you don't really believe in democracy.
Click to expand...
WTF are you talking about?

Have you been living under a rock for the last 25 years? The GOP is the better marketers and horrible legislators. The Democrats are terrible marketers and they can't get much passed the party of 'blocking every ******* thing whether it was originally their idea or not and whether it is good for the country or not'.

Mitch McConnell has been as bad for the country as Drumpf.

Perhaps you could describe this magical democracy you believe is possible when the minority is running the country.
 
Ziggurat said:
Well, yes. Because no side is sufficiently popular right now.

Which is precisely why this issue is better handled by the legislature than by the courts.
Click to expand...
Yeah..no. Do you mean the majority just doesn't have a big enough super-majority to get past the minority?
 
dudalb said:
I never thought I would say this, but I would support BIden saying, vis a vis the EPA decision:

"Mr Roberts has made his decision. Let him enforce it".
Click to expand...

That's good for the EPA crap but I believe it may be working for the Alito in charge of abortions too.

There is at least one prosecutor in TX balking at enforcing the abortion ban. Remember the sheriffs that wouldn't enforce mask mandates? Instead of a civil war what we might end up with are police departments selectively enforcing laws. With a disrespected SCOTUS we are closer to that kind of breakup of the country.
 
shuttlt said:
Could you explain how he is wrong? The only quote they have from him in the article is "because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children". The article goes on to explain "The fetal tissue used in these processes came from elective abortions that happened decades ago. But the cells have since replicated many times, so none of the original tissue is involved in the making of modern vaccines.".

They add in a claim that the cells that are currently being used are from foetal tissue and debunk his statement based on that. Their quote from him doesn't make that claim though. They also equivocate from his statement of "developed using" to "manufactured from".

This is pretty typical of the way fact checkers operate where they debunk a claim that is more specific, or otherwise altered, from the statement that they are ostensibly debunking.

Does he actually make the claim they debunk anywhere?
Click to expand...

I see your point.

However, the plaintiffs were OK with vaccines developed in the same way; the cell lines were using in testing the mRNA vaccine, not in manufacturing it. So explain how this should qualify for a religious exemption?
 
dudalb said:
I never thought I would say this, but I would support BIden saying, vis a vis the EPA decision:

"Mr Roberts has made his decision. Let him enforce it".
Click to expand...


Spoken like a true Stalinist. "How many battalions does the Pope have?"
 
Florida judge rules state's 15 week abortion ban violates the "privacy" clause of FL's constitution. He'll issue statewide injunction. DeSantis' office says it will appeal to state's conservative SC to reverse existing precedent regarding FL' right to privacy.

Looks like reversing he right to privacy has become the GOP's baby.
 
Segnosaur said:
Secondly... why should anyone trust the Attorney general?
Click to expand...

Because he's the attorney general. And by making this public statement, he has committed his office to that position. He cannot prosecute people for doing what he said was OK.
 
slyjoe said:
I see your point.



However, the plaintiffs were OK with vaccines developed in the same way; the cell lines were using in testing the mRNA vaccine, not in manufacturing it. So explain how this should qualify for a religious exemption?
Click to expand...
Because their "sincerely held religious belief something something."

Judgement in favor of the plaintiff.

Case dismissed.
 
many religious groups, Jews among them, have the sincerely held religious belief that they should be able to get an abortion if it's the best for the pregnant person.

The SC doesn't give a **** about any religion but their own.
 
Jon Stewart's podcast was very informative today. His guests are three female law professors and they know a lot about the history, this court, the religious right, and more. It's close to 45min long. I found every bit of it interesting.
Roe v. Wade has been overturned. So now what the hell are we supposed to do? The hosts of the Strict Scrutiny podcast — law professors Leah Litman, Melissa Murray, and Kate Shaw — are back to help Jon process the shocking decision. Writers Kris Acimovic and Tocarra Mallard also weigh in on why the Democrats answer to this crisis seems to be giving them $15.
Click to expand...

The link in case you want to watch it outside of the forum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twb_v78C1q4

If you want to watch it here or just sample it, here you go:
 
dudalb said:
I never thought I would say this, but I would support BIden saying, vis a vis the EPA decision:

"Mr Roberts has made his decision. Let him enforce it".
Click to expand...

As soon as RBG turned out to not be a highlander this is where it was heading. Packing the court was the best option, but that time has far passed in part because we listened to people who are way too emotionally invested in the sanctity of the Supreme Court and who failed to comprehend that it's now gone fully rogue and back and forth packing and repacking making the court way less coherent is still a win.

The only thing that requires the other branches to listen to the court are the same sort of norms the GOP has been using as toilet paper to their ends. Which is why they need to do this. They probably half-assed do this as to abortion in that abortion meds are FDA approved and there is some issue with state statutes that make FDA approved medicines illegal. They will be similarly cute with regulations somehow. Supremacy clause, etc.

This will eventually come to naught because we are effectively Iran; a political structure operating under the approval of a council of religious extremists mostly concerned with maintaining their group's hegemony over their people. It's just developing slowly but will speed up as dark money pacs ramp up and go full speed at manufacturing cases to get issues in front of the court.

This was always the danger of framing Supreme Court justices as priests handing down received wisdom as to the meaning of the constitution.
 
slyjoe said:
In related news, the SC didn't take up NY vaccine mandate order.

Clarence Thomas, on an abortion-related roll, diseented:



I seriously think Thomas has jumped the shark.

ETA: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...-covid-vaccines-are-made-cells-abor-rcna36156
Click to expand...

It's the lying media as usual. Thomas was quoting the petitioners:

Petitioners are 16 healthcare workers who served New York communities throughout the COVID–19 pandemic. They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines de-
rived from aborted children.
Click to expand...

And that particular claim isn't exactly incorrect, even according to NBC News:

Pfizer and Moderna used fetal cell lines early in their Covid vaccine development to test the efficacy of their formulas, as other vaccines have in the past. The fetal tissue used in these processes came from elective abortions that happened decades ago. But the cells have since replicated many times, so none of the original tissue is involved in the making of modern vaccines.
Click to expand...

So they were derived from abortions, just many years ago and they've since been replicated, so it doesn't really count?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom