SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Not Me, Us]

Truly an evil decision. We can only hope the fascist theocrats on the Supreme Court and their supporters get what they deserve.

[Not Me, Us]

Bear in mind the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg never liked this decision from the day it was handed down, so I doubt she'd be as apoplectic as some of you are that it is about to be overturned. 

Ginsburg was also a narcissist and a major reason for the Court's current composition. I couldn't care less about what she would have to say.

[Not Me, Us]

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.

So rape doesn't exist?

[Not Me, Us]

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.

This is a pointless discussion. Nobody is going to be convinced to change their mind. It comes down to whether you believe a fetus is a person or not, arguing about it is fruitless.

[Not Me, Us]

Absolutely disgusting, if true.

What I think many abortion ban proponents and Republican politicians don't get that statewide bans are primarily a war on poor women, who happen to be disproportionally black or Hispanic. Anyone from a conservative state with enough money is just going to sit in a plane and have an abortion in California, New York or Illinois, or somewhere abroad. All it does is preventing abortions for less wealthy women/families.

Furthermore, this is just a move backwards by a minority wanting to impose their moral views on society as a whole. Of course anything should be done to prevent abortions and late-term be restricted, but a total ban in some states is not a good idea. Generally, I believe abortion should be rare and legal.

For them, it's a feature, not a bug.

[Not Me, Us]

If President Biden (or any future President) were to pull an Andrew Jackson on this court (and render it impotent forever), I doubt there will be much of a backlash.

There's no reason not to. SCOTUS does not have the authority to determine what's constitutional or not other than the authority they give themselves. They can't enforce any of their rulings, while Biden has the National Guard which he can nationalize at will. Station the Guards at abortion clinics in red states like desegregated schools in the Jim Crow South to protect women getting abortions. There would be no recourse other than impeachment and removal which obviously wouldn't happen in a divided Senate, so he'd get off scot free.

[Not Me, Us]

If President Biden (or any future President) were to pull an Andrew Jackson on this court (and render it impotent forever), I doubt there will be much of a backlash.

There's no reason not to. SCOTUS does not have the authority to determine what's constitutional or not other than the authority they give themselves. They can't enforce any of their rulings, while Biden has the National Guard which he can nationalize at will. Station the Guards at abortion clinics in red states like desegregated schools in the Jim Crow South to protect women getting abortions. There would be no recourse other than impeachment and removal which obviously wouldn't happen in a divided Senate, so he'd get off scot free.

What abortion clinics? It's too late in Mississippi, probably other states soon or already.

At this point it would be nothing but damage mitigation, but it would certainly be better than nothing. It will clearly never happen anyway, mostly just wishful thinking on my part.