SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[GoTfan]

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.

Neither is gun ownership.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

Actually there has been at least one, the Republicans passed a ban on a specific procedure called dilation & extraction (which they referred to as "partial birth abortion") which SCOTUS upheld, although the ban doesn't really do much since the procedure was hardly ever used except for the exceptions outlined in the law to save the mother's life.

As for Democrats, I imagine it was just easier to accept the status quo and not push anything. Although I'm not sure what "legislation codifying Roe v. Wade" would really accomplish, the SCOTUS could just simply strike that down as well.

[Yoda]

How many of the republican-appointed Justices said during their confirmation hearings that Roe was "settled law?"

[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 know, you’re a rare breed.

The Catholic Church might have problems, but least it's consistent on the life part.

ALL LIFE. Migrants, The elderly, the poor, the unborn, the mentally disabled, BLM, all of that comes into play.

[MRS DONNA SHALALA]

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?

I mean...yes? People in vegetative states are taken off life support every day.

[OSR stands with Israel]

There's 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.

It is not the job of the courts to decide what is or what is not good policy.

[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.

Neither is gun ownership.

Unlike abortion, the right to bear arms is in fact a right.

[Schiff for Senate]

Well I mean red states like OK have more or less already flouted Roe with their recent laws. All this will do is make that more commonplace in solid red states.

Also it's interesting - I get it's a hot topic, but I always thought trans issues were what generated multipage threads on here. However, this thread was posted like 3 hours ago - less than that - and it's already on its fifteenth page. Other threads about transgenders usually have a hard time making it past 6-7 pages, and that's weeks or even months after they get posted. Still, this news is groundbreaking and it is worthy of discussion (though still shocked at how much is happening).

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.

It is for, say, a 13 year old impregnated as the result of rape or incest. OK has a law that says such a 13-year-old cannot get an abortion.


UPDATE: And in the time I wrote this post, 10 new replies were posted...

[All Along The Watchtower]

8 pages on this in two hours and real issues like inflation are lucky to get two

Abortion, regardless of your view on it, is a very real issue unless you're a smugly sheltered male who can afford to not care. Does that describe you?

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

Neither is gun ownership.

Read the constitution

[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

Literally the job of the Supreme Court to care

1. The Constitution is open to interpretation.

2. The Ninth Amendment exists, you can't just ignore it.

3. It's a very dangerous precedent to take rights away from people regardless of whether the rights were "correctly" given by the Supreme Court.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

I do. Keep ObamaCare and add in the Public Option. Enthusiastically continue to provide federal feeding/health care/etc. programs for mothers and their children. Robustly fund and support adoption, including a right to drop off your baby at an orphanage, no questions asked, if you cannot care for it. I support Build Back Better as passed by the House, which includes universal paid leave. I support closing the gender pay gap legislatively. I support protecting unions with the PRO act so Women can have better working conditions. I support decriminalizing non-violent drug offenses so we aren't separating families over minor matters. I support an aggressive fight against any company that would discriminate based on pregnancy status, or status of being a mother, for purposes of hiring, retention, or promotion.

I simply reject the idea that in order to support Women, we have to support their effectively unfettered ability to kill another. The US, until now, was one of just seven countries, including North Korea, allowing unfettered access to elective abortion. Today, that begins to change.

[Sol]

Also it's interesting - I get it's a hot topic, but I always thought trans issues were what generated multipage threads on here. However, this thread was posted like 3 hours ago - less than that - and it's already on its fifteenth page. Other threads about transgenders usually have a hard time making it past 6-7 pages, and that's weeks or even months after they get posted. Still, this news is groundbreaking and it is worthy of discussion (though still shocked at how much is happening).

Perhaps it's because these issues are life or death that they generate discussion!

[BGBC]

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.

I agree with the sentiment, but I think this type of gatekeeping does a disservice to the movement. You can lock arms with people you think are hypocrites.

[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.

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?

I agree, and particularly on Griswold I truly can't imagine it, but the thing is that there are lots of positions in the conservative legal world that are held by maybe 75% of people. These can't get through when you have a 5-4 majority, and only have a shot when you have 6-3, but they become likelier the more the conservative majority grows. Given realistic prognoses of Senate composition we can expect the conservative majority to grow unless something very unexpected happens, and that will come with an ideological ratchet effect.

(Consider that, per 538 charts, the distance between Gorsuch and Kavanaugh was as large as the distance between a conservative and a liberal, and they're just different kinds of conservatives. This meant that the 5-4 majority made the court unexpectedly liberal; there were multiple terms over the 2010s in which most of the 5-4 decisions took the form of "one conservative defects", and that was never a terribly rare outcome. This means there's a lot of stuff a 6-3 court could overturn. There would be more that 7-2 would target, and so on.)

[It’s so Joever]

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.

Neither is gun ownership.

Read the constitution

Water isn’t a need because the constitution doesn’t say it is. Go live without water now, you founding fetishizers!

[Pericles]

There's 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.

It is not the job of the courts to decide what is or what is not good policy.

I'm not trying to give an interpretation of the US Constitution, I'm giving my opinion that I support abortion being legal and accessible and so it's obviously a bad outcome from my view that this will not be the situation in many states.

[GoTfan]

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.

Neither is gun ownership.

Unlike abortion, the right to bear arms is in fact a right.

You didn't say right. You said it wasn't a need.

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.

Neither is gun ownership.

Read the constitution

You mean that document Republicans don't care about unless it's the Second Amendment?

[Saint Milei]

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.

Neither is gun ownership.

Read the constitution

Water isn’t a need because the constitution doesn’t say it is. Go live without water now, you founding fetishizers!

9th amendment says it is

[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.

I do. Keep ObamaCare and add in the Public Option. Enthusiastically continue to provide federal feeding/health care/etc. programs for mothers and their children. Robustly fund and support adoption, including a right to drop off your baby at an orphanage, no questions asked, if you cannot care for it. I support Build Back Better as passed by the House, which includes universal paid leave. I support closing the gender pay gap legislatively. I support protecting unions with the PRO act so Women can have better working conditions. I support decriminalizing non-violent drug offenses so we aren't separating families over minor matters. I support an aggressive fight against any company that would discriminate based on pregnancy status, or status of being a mother, for purposes of hiring, retention, or promotion.

I simply reject the idea that in order to support Women, we have to support their effectively unfettered ability to kill another. The US, until now, was one of just seven countries, including North Korea, allowing unfettered access to elective abortion. Today, that begins to change.

We are more socially liberal on this issue than most other countries, including Norway, France, Germany, the UK.

[soundchaser]

The conservative court’s whole approach to the 14th Amendment is terrifying — no matter how much this opinion says “this is only a ruling on abortion” (bad enough), it’s hard to actually believe that.

[Schiff for Senate]

8 pages on this in two hours and real issues like inflation are lucky to get two

Sad!

The repeal of Roe v Wade is a very important issue that'll have an impact for females in lots of red states. Now that they may well have a free rein, many red states (the ones that didn't already flout Roe) will pass laws like OK's, by which teenager girls impregnated as a result of rape/incest might not be allowed to get abortions. This is a very real issue that will impact many people whether or not it impacts you directly. At the very least it's better than the other issues that generate mutipage threads - namely, issues about transgenders in swimming competitions (and yes, I admit I frequently post in such threads too). That sad, it's absolutely shocking that in under 3 hours of its creation this thread is on page 15.

And in the time I wrote this post, another 12 replies written!! And the thread is now filled up 15 pages and has moved onto a 16th.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Also it's interesting - I get it's a hot topic, but I always thought trans issues were what generated multipage threads on here. However, this thread was posted like 3 hours ago - less than that - and it's already on its fifteenth page. Other threads about transgenders usually have a hard time making it past 6-7 pages, and that's weeks or even months after they get posted. Still, this news is groundbreaking and it is worthy of discussion (though still shocked at how much is happening).

Perhaps it's because these issues are life or death that they generate discussion!

but what about inflation

that's a more important issue unlike Social issues, because inflation is Economic

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

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.

Hopefully this cause outweighs your desire to ban circumcision or religious child-rearing.

[Schiff for Senate]

Also it's interesting - I get it's a hot topic, but I always thought trans issues were what generated multipage threads on here. However, this thread was posted like 3 hours ago - less than that - and it's already on its fifteenth page. Other threads about transgenders usually have a hard time making it past 6-7 pages, and that's weeks or even months after they get posted. Still, this news is groundbreaking and it is worthy of discussion (though still shocked at how much is happening).

Perhaps it's because these issues are life or death that they generate discussion!

But still - 16 pages in three hours is incredible.