Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Abortion isn't gonna be criminalized, it's gonna go back to the states and all the secular states will have abortion laws, but states like LA will criminalized it.


Anyways, there are plenty of other options to abortion like morning after pill, birth control, adoptions and condomns, that Kavanaugh and Roberts affirmed 6-3 in planned parenthood

[TrumpBritt24]

Bye-Bye, Roe!

[super6646]

Fantastic pick.  I'm not super optimistic but if there is even a chance that this mass genocide of abortion can be chipped away at with an overturning of Roe, that would be great.  

Oh for heaven's sake.  People aren't going to stop getting medical abortions just because Mississippi and Kansas make it illegal.

Nobody wants to have an abortion, it's always a desperate, painful choice, and if you're in the position where you're forced to make that choice, having to cross state (or national) borders, or break the law, won't stop you.

All anti-abortion laws end up doing is making life hell for the women who are already in that horrible situation of needing an abortion.  It's just cruelty and nothing more.

Increasing the distance required to travel to an abortion clinic increases the costs of getting an abortion.  This in turn reduces the abortion rate.  If you increase the cost of something, the quantity demanded will decrease.  This is just common sense.   An added benefit something a criminal offense also heightens the perception of the moral unacceptability of an act among the population. 

#ShoutYourAbortion shows that there are indeed people who do want to get an abortion.  Regardless, people should feel guilty and pained about murdering their children.   This brokenness is necessary so that these women who aborted can truly repent and be restored to true peace in a way that rationalizing wrongdoing never could.  And it is a good thing for both the mother and child to make it so that there are more roadblocks to performing such an evil thing as murdering one's own children. 

There is nothing cruel about prohibiting murder and prosecuting those who commit it anyways.   It is just and right.  But you are correct that repealing Roe is just the first step.  Ideally, abortion would be a federal crime with mandatory prison time.  

...

What is wrong with you? Dear god what a terrible take

[GeneralMacArthur]

Geez, it's like we're back in the late 80s with some of the religious right takes on here.  Anyone want to advocate the death penalty for homosexuality or mandatory scripture readings and prayer in school while we're at it?

[Intell]

Can't democrats just legislate abortion through congress.

[afleitch]

What I find interesting is that if Roe goes, then you will probably see some of the biggest demonstrations and civil disobedience America has ever seen.

It's nice to see people admit that their main takeaway from abolishing Roe isn't reducing abortion but declaring women and providers murderers and thinking of ways the law can punish them.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Can't democrats just legislate abortion through congress.

They can pass legislation, but the Supreme Court has ability to strike down a Congressional act (or even state law) as unconstitutional via judicial review (though it's relatively rare for obvious reasons -- the whole equal branches thingy *cough*).  

Per uscourts.gov:  

The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.

Before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (1869), the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only applicable to the federal government. After the Amendment's passage, the Supreme Court began ruling that most of its provisions were applicable to the states as well. Therefore, the Court has the final say over when a right is protected by the Constitution or when a Constitutional right is violated.

Source:  https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about

(Legal and Constitutional buffs, please feel free to correct me if my expert-memory-recall and expert-Googling is wrong).  

[ibagli]

Can't democrats just legislate abortion through congress.

I mean, they could try, and there are Democrats who want to do just that, but my guess is that with the current and likely near-future court, federal abortion law is going to have a ratchet effect applied by the court. Restrictions on abortion will have the most favorable interpretation sought (the commerce clause will suddenly be a mile wide) while protections of abortion will violate states' rights.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

What I find interesting is that if Roe goes, then you will probably see some of the biggest demonstrations and civil disobedience America has ever seen.

It's nice to see people admit that their main takeaway from abolishing Roe isn't reducing abortion but declaring women and providers murderers and thinking of ways the law can punish them.

Don't you realize that males are the ones that should use birth control to stop pregnancy, which are condoms. Roe isn't going anywhere, due to the fact if it's overturned it goes back to the states and the states like Cali and NY and IL won't overrule Roe, but LA and ND and SD have

[BlueSwan]

Can't democrats just legislate abortion through congress.

Honestly, Roe V Wade is the least of my concerns. Making abortion an issue that is decided by elected politicians instead of the courts is not necessarily a bad thing and it should be a massive winning issue for democrats anyway. That of course is if Roe is merely struck down and not followed up with some draconian ruling making abortion illegal entirely, which I don't think they would dare.

I am MUCH more concerned about voting rights and healthcare being destroyed by a conservative supreme court.

But hey, Hillary was really unlikable, right 2016 abstainers and GP voters?

[Hope For A New Era]

Oh for heaven's sake.  People aren't going to stop getting medical abortions just because Mississippi and Kansas make it illegal.

There was actually a Kansas state Supreme Court decision - unless it's overturned, abortion will remain legal in Kansas even if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

That court is staying liberal for a very long time. Kathleen Sebelius made sure of that.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Social conservatives have propagated myths about abortion for years.  Listening to Trump and his friends, you'd think tons of young women were getting abortions and that they were all waiting until the second or third trimester to get late-term abortions.  The real numbers?  Around 1% of pregnancies end in abortion, and of those, 91% are in the first trimester, only 1% in the third trimester.  The abortion rate is decreasing overall, and the rate of abortions after the first trimester is decreasing as well, a trend we've seen since Roe v. Wade.

35% of pregnancies end in abortion in NY. On low end, 5 % in SD. Overall in US about 20%.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/ss/ss6811a1.htm#T2_down

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

D's are getting so worked up over Roe being overturned, listen to the debate, Tues and see what both Biden and Trump has to say, if women can't have abortions, there are adoptions, they took the risk of having unprotected sex

A Conservative Crt isn't a big deal to me, the Crt will vote against any immigration reform bill that allows amnesty, that's a silver lining to me.

Anyways, the voters voted Trump in and they were taking a risk

[Xing]

It’s only okay when Republicans do it example #6927492749192748

Repealing Roe would be the tip of the iceberg of the lasting damage a 6-3 Republican court would do. And yes, I said “Republican” instead of “conservative”, because that’s more accurate.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Roe isn't the critical issue for me, because:
1. Abortion isn't an issue I care deeply about.
2. Whether abortion should be legal depends very much upon when a human life begins, which is very much a subjective decision that the Constitution is mostly^* silent on, so it should be up to the legislature(s)^∆ to decide.
3. Roe was a very poorly reasoned decision that is a prime example of legislating from the bench.

^* The 14th Amendment's definition of citizenship established a minimum definition of when born, so that it would be reasonable to argue that the Constitution requires infanticide to be illegal, but that doesn't affect abortion.

^∆ It's an open question whether Federal or State legislatures would have primacy in this issue if it is left to the legislative branch to decide. My gut view is that it would mostly be a State issue, with the Federal role limited to cases where a woman crosses State lines to get an abortion, with the default rule being that without Federal legislation, a woman who crosses State lines to get an abortion in another State cannot be prosecuted in her home State to get an abortion in a State where it is legal for her to do so.

[Beet]

No, repealing Roe would be a disaster. It's an established 50 year precedent that is well founded in legal doctrine, and the objections to it are primarily political, not legal. It is something I deeply about. It would also be extremely unpopular with polls showing anywhere from 60% to 75% of Americans opposed to it, even many who are pro-life.

Further, if it is gone then the matter should be settled at the Federal level, since all of the arguments on both sides of the debate depend on universal principles or values that do not change when you cross state lines, and history is extremely clear that fundamental civil rights issues should not be left up to states' rights. That is my view but I feel extremely strongly about this, on all three levels (that abortion rights should be preserved, that Roe should be preserved, and that the issue should be Federal).

[Alcibiades]

If Republicans actually cared about reducing abortion rates, they would be pushing for more widespread sex education and easier access to contraceptives. But of course it’s not actually about reducing abortions themselves, but rather criminalising women.

[Person Man]

Can't democrats just legislate abortion through congress.

They can pass legislation, but the Supreme Court has ability to strike down a Congressional act (or even state law) as unconstitutional via judicial review (though it's relatively rare for obvious reasons -- the whole equal branches thingy *cough*).  

Per uscourts.gov:  

The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.

Before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (1869), the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only applicable to the federal government. After the Amendment's passage, the Supreme Court began ruling that most of its provisions were applicable to the states as well. Therefore, the Court has the final say over when a right is protected by the Constitution or when a Constitutional right is violated.

Source:  https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about

(Legal and Constitutional buffs, please feel free to correct me if my expert-memory-recall and expert-Googling is wrong).  

But that would mean declaring some Right to be Born or to partially invalidate the Federal Preemptive clause. My guess is at the very least it would legalize abortion on places where state authorities have no jurisdiction, like reservations unless scotus says there is a right to be born. The only way you could enforce that without congress would be to allow civil rights suits against people getting and receiving abortions on behalf of the fetus by the abortive father or the grandparents.

[YE]

Continue this on USGD. This thread went from being related to the election to merely the nominee which is an act independent of ye outcome of the 2020 election in theory.