SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[GoTfan]

Congress should have resolved this issue years ago.

I am surprised that in the 50 years period between Roe and this case, no national law on abortion was passed. There have been multiple trifectas in that time, and you'd think that somebody would have made a move at some point.

Democrats were fine with the status quo and Republicans could use it as a campaign machine.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This is a leak of a document written in February, so I'm taking it with a grain of salt. But If this is the real opinion they'll be releasing in a few weeks, Praise the LORD. This is not only the legally correct (When you take all the politics out of it, there is no right to abortion in the constitution. It simply isn't there. We invented it in 1973, and have only kept it around this long for public opinion concerns, which is not a legally appropriate basis for Court Decisions.) but also incredibly life-saving Decision. It's also a balanced decision that doesn't threaten Griswold or try to define personhood. It simply leaves abortion to the states. Maryland can allow abortion in the 9th Month, as their laws currently do. Texas can ban it completely if they choose. For the first time in nearly fifty years, people will not be told by a court what to do about abortion, but instead to determine the appropriate destiny for each society through our democracy. And they will remain able to prevent implantation via contraception.

I don't much care who this helps electorally. What I do find praise in is the strengthening of our democracy and the saving of lives that this decision would bring.

Also, if it's all true - Gorsuch, I was wrong about you. I still don't really get why you gave this answer, but glad to see you are actually pro-life. https://youtu.be/Z08EdjHJgoI

Why do you hate women so much?

Nothing about that post suggests he hates women.

Apart from the fact he's salivating over a woman's right to bodily autonomy being revoked.

For the vast majority of cases, women can exercise their right to bodily autonomy by choosing not to engage in acts they know can result in pregnancy.

And with that, you confirm you hate women too.

I am a woman. My opinion on the issue has more value than yours.

Not when your opinion is in favor of restricting other women's rights. And newsflash, there are women who hate other women. Being a woman doesn't mean you cannot be capable of hating women. Not saying that you do hate women, but you being a woman doesn't make your opinion right.

My opinion isn't in favor of restricting anyone's rights, because abortion isn't a right.

So you're saying that people don't have a right over their own bodies? Interesting logic. Just remember that there was a time that freedom wasn't a right if you were Black.

As I previously said:

For the vast majority of cases, women can exercise their right to bodily autonomy by choosing not to engage in acts they know can result in pregnancy.

Abortion affects a body that isn't a woman's right to harm.

And had the Africans kidnapped from their homelands been a little quicker in running they could have avoided slavery. We can play games like this all day, it doesn't make your argument right.

A woman has every right to terminate a pregnancy. And abortion won't stop because of this. A fetus is not a person. Your feelings are irrelevant to other people's rights.

So if a fetus isnt a person then at 9 months she can still get an abortion?

I don't think you understand that fetus cannot survive outside of the womb up until a certain point. There are already restrictions on abortion that do not allow it after the third trimester because the fetus has become viable.

Some humans cannot survive outside an iron lung. Can we abort them?

[fhtagn]

Again, people, look at what happened at Ceausescu's Romania after he outlawed abortion. It didn't stop abortion. It just pushed into back alleys where a lot of women died because they didn't have access to the care they needed.

Abortion isn't a need.

[Ferguson97]

An fetus that cannot survive outside the womb is not a child.

Wow, did Alito know about this before he wrote the draft? He should have included this, it would have made it an open and shut case. The liberals would have had zero recourse!

Sorry but no, the colloquial usage of 'child' in certain contexts does not mean that a fetus is a living human being in a biological, ethical, or legal sense.

Claiming that a fetus is not a living being in a biological sense is science denial.

You're right, I should have said human being.

A fetus is not a human being in any meaningful sense of the word.

[soundchaser]

Congress should have resolved this issue years ago.

I am surprised that in the 50 years period between Roe and this case, no national law on abortion was passed. There have been multiple trifectas in that time, and you'd think that somebody would have made a move at some point.

Democrats were fine with the status quo and Republicans could use it as a campaign machine.

Yes, presumably a majority of Democrats (myself included) didn’t see this day actually coming.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

So wait, abortion will be completely illegal in those 13 states with laws banning abortion, even abortions in the first trimester?

It's entirely up to each state. You would need to refer to the state law for any allowance or exception.

This is a leak of a document written in February, so I'm taking it with a grain of salt. But If this is the real opinion they'll be releasing in a few weeks, Praise the LORD. This is not only the legally correct (When you take all the politics out of it, there is no right to abortion in the constitution. It simply isn't there. We invented it in 1973, and have only kept it around this long for public opinion concerns, which is not a legally appropriate basis for Court Decisions.) but also incredibly life-saving Decision. It's also a balanced decision that doesn't threaten Griswold or try to define personhood. It simply leaves abortion to the states. Maryland can allow abortion in the 9th Month, as their laws currently do. Texas can ban it completely if they choose. For the first time in nearly fifty years, people will not be told by a court what to do about abortion, but instead to determine the appropriate destiny for each society through our democracy. And they will remain able to prevent implantation via contraception.

I don't much care who this helps electorally. What I do find praise in is the strengthening of our democracy and the saving of lives that this decision would bring.

Also, if it's all true - Gorsuch, I was wrong about you. I still don't really get why you gave this answer, but glad to see you are actually pro-life. https://youtu.be/Z08EdjHJgoI

Why do you hate women so much?

I don't. I enthusiastically support robust government provided health care for Children, all sorts of entitlement programs for children and mothers, robust adoption programs, and contraception. I also support abortion allowance in certain cases, like rape, incest, life of the mother, fetal abnormalities - I would even be willing to sign a 15 week ban and set in firm stone, never be able to be changed. Heck, in Atlasia [Lincoln] I authored a 20 week ban, voted into law by the people, and I have no plans to change that should I serve in office again.

I simply reject the notion that it is up to a court to decide all of this. It should be decided by the people through their representatives. I further reject the notion that I have to embrace unfettered or effectively unfettered abortion to support Women. I think we should be a society where Women don't need to destroy life to succeed, but where we still enthusiastically assist Women and their babies with having successful lives.

Atlasia is not a real country so using it as an example is stupid.

You support a woman's autonomy being stripped away, which lines you up with theocrats.

I am a woman. My opinion on the issue has more value than yours.

You don't actually believe this, you're just parroting what you've seen some pro-choice women say to pro-life men as an attempt to "own" him.

You don't get to say what I do or do not believe in. Nor do you know me well enough to have a valid argument here.

Okay, theocrat.

Can you do anything except make personal attacks in violation of the TOS. You can be upset but attacking posters is a TOS violation and you keep doing that.

Doesn't make me wrong.

It's not a woman's autonomy that is of primary concern here, it's the autonomy of the defenseless unborn child.

An fetus that cannot survive outside the womb is not a child.

Great, you live in a state that allows abortion throughout all of pregnancy. You can keep voting for that. Those of us in other states may vote differently. That's exactly how we should decide this - through Democracy, not through Courts inventing constitutional rights regardless of what the people may want.

A fetus is a child at implantation. Everything we know about them indicates they are alive, have bodily functions, breathe, have a heartbeat, and have independent movement. The fact they are dependent on another does not matter - indeed, children remain dependent on their parents for many years beyond the womb. Certainly, abortion may be merited in certain situations - but those circumstances should be agreed upon by the people, not mandated by a Court.

This is a leak of a document written in February, so I'm taking it with a grain of salt. But If this is the real opinion they'll be releasing in a few weeks, Praise the LORD. This is not only the legally correct (When you take all the politics out of it, there is no right to abortion in the constitution. It simply isn't there. We invented it in 1973, and have only kept it around this long for public opinion concerns, which is not a legally appropriate basis for Court Decisions.) but also incredibly life-saving Decision. It's also a balanced decision that doesn't threaten Griswold or try to define personhood. It simply leaves abortion to the states. Maryland can allow abortion in the 9th Month, as their laws currently do. Texas can ban it completely if they choose. For the first time in nearly fifty years, people will not be told by a court what to do about abortion, but instead to determine the appropriate destiny for each society through our democracy. And they will remain able to prevent implantation via contraception.

I don't much care who this helps electorally. What I do find praise in is the strengthening of our democracy and the saving of lives that this decision would bring.

Also, if it's all true - Gorsuch, I was wrong about you. I still don't really get why you gave this answer, but glad to see you are actually pro-life. https://youtu.be/Z08EdjHJgoI

Why do you hate women so much?

Nothing about that post suggests he hates women.

Apart from the fact he's salivating over a woman's right to bodily autonomy being revoked.

For the vast majority of cases, women can exercise their right to bodily autonomy by choosing not to engage in acts they know can result in pregnancy.

And with that, you confirm you hate women too.

I am a woman. My opinion on the issue has more value than yours.

Not when your opinion is in favor of restricting other women's rights. And newsflash, there are women who hate other women. Being a woman doesn't mean you cannot be capable of hating women. Not saying that you do hate women, but you being a woman doesn't make your opinion right.

My opinion isn't in favor of restricting anyone's rights, because abortion isn't a right.

So you're saying that people don't have a right over their own bodies? Interesting logic. Just remember that there was a time that freedom wasn't a right if you were Black.

As I previously said:

For the vast majority of cases, women can exercise their right to bodily autonomy by choosing not to engage in acts they know can result in pregnancy.

Abortion affects a body that isn't a woman's right to harm.

And had the Africans kidnapped from their homelands been a little quicker in running they could have avoided slavery. We can play games like this all day, it doesn't make your argument right.

A woman has every right to terminate a pregnancy. And abortion won't stop because of this. A fetus is not a person. Your feelings are irrelevant to other people's rights.

So if a fetus isnt a person then at 9 months she can still get an abortion?

I don't think you understand that fetus cannot survive outside of the womb up until a certain point. There are already restrictions on abortion that do not allow it after the third trimester because the fetus has become viable.

In many states, yes. But some states do allow it at any point during pregnancy.

Note: I don't need to hear "no doctor would ever perform a 36 week abortion" or whatever. I'm simply referring to the law in and of itself, which in some states either has no restriction at all or a restriction so loose and easy to get around that there is effectively no restriction.

[fhtagn]

An fetus that cannot survive outside the womb is not a child.

Wow, did Alito know about this before he wrote the draft? He should have included this, it would have made it an open and shut case. The liberals would have had zero recourse!

Sorry but no, the colloquial usage of 'child' in certain contexts does not mean that a fetus is a living being in a biological, ethical, or legal sense.

Claiming that a fetus is not a living being in a biological sense is science denial.

You're right, I should have said human being.

A fetus is not a human being in any meaningful sense of the word.

It's a human being because it's the offspring of two human beings. Once again, you are denying science.

[Vosem]

look I know mr x can be disingenuous but its obvious what he's talking about. As I said above, people in this thread are fear mongering about the SCOTUS using the same logic to overturn Griswold/Obergefell/Lawrence. That's absolutely concern trolling

Obergefell and Lawrence sure, but how is Griswold not under threat from this decision? I'm hardly a legal scholar, but from my skimming of the draft opinion and prior knowledge of both cases, it seems like Griswold and Roe were decided on similar bases. Wouldn't a decision overturning Roe necessarily indicate that Griswold is suspect?

They really weren't, and while the logic of the Griswold decision has probably been attacked more than Roe, the actual outcome is not particularly controversial (or at least is supported by normie conservatives).

Also depends on what you mean by "under threat". If you mean that the Court was once much more afraid of making decisions that would anger the American progressive movement than it is now, then lots of things are under threat, since this is clearly absolutely no barrier to anything.

By contrast, the way that Alito worded excerpts I've read I would have to think overrules Obergefell (it not-very-subtly hints that this would be a correct decision). Lawrence is sustainable if you assume something along the lines of a right to privacy (and similar concepts really do go back all the way to the beginning), although if you insist that such a right only covers things that would've been protected in 1787, or are extensions of such things, then you could be internally consistent and overrule Lawrence.

[Aurelius]

Congress should have resolved this issue years ago.

So many things would be less at issue in this country if Congress actually did its job instead of spending the past fifty years delegating almost all of its power to the other branches of government.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Absolutely horrendous, and the Court has just surrendered its last ounce of legitimacy.

Name the provision of the constitution where it guarantees abortion rights

literally who cares

[Ferguson97]

It's a human being because it's the offspring of two human beings. Once again, you are denying science.

You sincerely have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you think it's a human being the second the eggs are fertilized?

[AncestralDemocrat.]

As a devout Catholic, which the media made such a point of in 2020, surely Biden will be ok with this..

[DrScholl]

This would be laughed out of even the most conservative court. Not relevant to the argument and furthermore that is in reference to someone who wanted the pregnancy.

[fhtagn]

It's a human being because it's the offspring of two human beings. Once again, you are denying science.

You sincerely have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you think it's a human being the second the eggs are fertilized?

What makes them not human? Is their DNA not human? Are they not made of human cells? Are they not the product of human reproduction?

[Ferguson97]

It's a human being because it's the offspring of two human beings. Once again, you are denying science.

You sincerely have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you think it's a human being the second the eggs are fertilized?

What makes them not human? Is their DNA not human? Are they not made of human cells? Are they not the product of human reproduction?

So that's a "yes".

I need to know: do you view a woman taking a morning-after pill to be equivalent to shooting and killing someone?

[DaleCooper]

Oh my god, stop with the stupid semantic arguments about human beings. A fetus is a human life in an extremely early stage of development. Only a fool would deny that. The issue is whether or not we want the government legislating away women's bodily autonomy over an unviable fetus.

We're well on the way to conservative legislation that requires police-state oversight of all female behavior during pregnancy, all in the name of making sure the fetus is preserved. If you care about individual rights and liberties (which we all know conservatives don't) then this is terrible news.

[It’s so Joever]

It’s the height of hypocrisy of the same “pro lifers” to then fight against expanding the social safety net for prospective mothers. If you do not support universal healthcare and guaranteed paid maternal leave at the VERY minimum, I don’t want to hear pro life out of your mouth. I am pro life, 99% of the rest of these “pro lifers” only want to get high off their power.

[jojoju1998]

It’s the height of hypocrisy of the same “pro lifers” to then fight against expanding the social safety net for prospective mothers. If you do not support universal healthcare and guaranteed paid maternal leave at the VERY minimum, I don’t want to hear pro life out of your mouth. I am pro life, 99% of the rest of these “pro lifers” only want to get high off their power.

Well I do. Protecting life at all stages from conception to natural death.

Also. Higher wages. Unions. Protecting migrants. All of that comes into play. All life.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

look I know mr x can be disingenuous but its obvious what he's talking about. As I said above, people in this thread are fear mongering about the SCOTUS using the same logic to overturn Griswold/Obergefell/Lawrence. That's absolutely concern trolling

Obergefell and Lawrence sure, but how is Griswold not under threat from this decision? I'm hardly a legal scholar, but from my skimming of the draft opinion and prior knowledge of both cases, it seems like Griswold and Roe were decided on similar bases. Wouldn't a decision overturning Roe necessarily indicate that Griswold is suspect?

They really weren't, and while the logic of the Griswold decision has probably been attacked more than Roe, the actual outcome is not particularly controversial (or at least is supported by normie conservatives).

Also depends on what you mean by "under threat". If you mean that the Court was once much more afraid of making decisions that would anger the American progressive movement than it is now, then lots of things are under threat, since this is clearly absolutely no barrier to anything.

By contrast, the way that Alito worded excerpts I've read I would have to think overrules Obergefell (it not-very-subtly hints that this would be a correct decision). Lawrence is sustainable if you assume something along the lines of a right to privacy (and similar concepts really do go back all the way to the beginning), although if you insist that such a right only covers things that would've been protected in 1787, or are extensions of such things, then you could be internally consistent and overrule Lawrence.

The real reason I think Griswold and Lawrence aren't going anywhere is simple: There's no drive to get a state to pass laws in contravention of them and challenge the decisions. The Republicans have to take a rather extreme position on abortion because it's what their base wants, but there's no longer (and really hasn't been for decades) a similar to push to ban all forms of birth control or sodomy, and it's hard to see a state actually following through and banning them thus creating the needed case. Also why Loving v. Virginia is an even bigger stretch, what state is actually going to want to ban interracial marriage today?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Absolutely horrendous, and the Court has just surrendered its last ounce of legitimacy.

Name the provision of the constitution where it guarantees abortion rights

literally who cares

Literally the job of the Supreme Court to care

[It’s so Joever]

It’s the height of hypocrisy of the same “pro lifers” to then fight against expanding the social safety net for prospective mothers. If you do not support universal healthcare and guaranteed paid maternal leave at the VERY minimum, I don’t want to hear pro life out of your mouth. I am pro life, 99% of the rest of these “pro lifers” only want to get high off their power.

Well I do. Protecting life at all stages from conception to natural death.

Also. Higher wages. Unions. Protecting migrants. All of that comes into play. All life.

I know, you’re a rare breed.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

It's a human being because it's the offspring of two human beings. Once again, you are denying science.

You sincerely have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you think it's a human being the second the eggs are fertilized?

What makes them not human? Is their DNA not human? Are they not made of human cells? Are they not the product of human reproduction?

[dodges simple reality-based question, responds with facetious hypothetical]

Loving this exchange, a master class in pro-infanticide argumentation.

[ꙮ]

Oh my god, stop with the stupid semantic arguments about human beings. A fetus is a human life in an extremely early stage of development. Only a fool would deny that. The issue is whether or not we want the government legislating away women's bodily autonomy over an unviable fetus.

We're well on the way to conservative legislation that requires police-state oversight of all female behavior during pregnancy, all in the name of making sure the fetus is preserved. If you care about individual rights and liberties (which we all know conservatives don't) then this is terrible news.

I hardly think these arguments are productive, but what else are people suppose to discuss? The differing standards for what constitutes a "human life" is where the entirety of the abortion issue comes from. It is the root of the problem. Discussing abortion without discussing what counts as a human being is like discussing gun control without defining what a firearm is.

[John Dule]

Oh my god, stop with the stupid semantic arguments about human beings. A fetus is a human life in an extremely early stage of development. Only a fool would deny that. The issue is whether or not we want the government legislating away women's bodily autonomy over an unviable fetus.

We're well on the way to conservative legislation that requires police-state oversight of all female behavior during pregnancy, all in the name of making sure the fetus is preserved. If you care about individual rights and liberties (which we all know conservatives don't) then this is terrible news.

If that's the first argument, then the second argument is whether the best way to protect this right is by (A) Passing a Constitutional amendment or other federal law, or (B) Having five unelected elderly people in robes read a 250-year-old document in such a way so as to construe a nonexistent right and then hope that five other unelected elderly people in robes don't someday decide otherwise. I know which approach I prefer.

[Pericles]

There are an awful lot of religious fundamentalists in this thread trying to impose their values on others. Yes, Congress should have passed a law legalising abortion. However, the issue should have remained settled judicially. Roe was good policy, and a lot of suffering will now be caused by millions of people losing their rights. Just as Roe was not a permanent victory, this won't be either and eventually, one way or another, abortion rights will be guaranteed again.