SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/abc15/status/1608977399852728320

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1608870013934637056

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yeah it's called abortion pills you can take them the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, you can buy them online

I agree in choice but the Eday was decided sometimes D's use health care access to skip over ideas like affordable Housing what did Newsom do he is granting carpetbagger access to Abortion but in his own Reparations bill you have to be born or a decendant of someone born in CA between 1933/1977 you can't be a carpetbagger

So anyone not born in CA between those yrs can't get reparations but you can carpetbag to VA for Abortion and so many people came after those yrs for affordable Housing

[Progressive Pessimist]

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1608870013934637056

Beyond f***ed up!

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1608870013934637056

Beyond f***ed up!

No it's not first 12 weeks you can buy Abortion pills that is accessible online that's why Cassidy is a slam dunk for Gov even Gov JBE is pro life, and so was Late Gov Kathleen Blanco

https://www.verywellhealth.com/how-long-can-you-use-the-abortion-pill-5525557


Gavin Newsom said you can carpetbag to CA for Abortion anyways

Even moreso there are condems and Birth Control pills you don't have to get pregnant it's only a 30 percentage chance a female gets pregnant with unprotected sex not every time they get pregnant but it's always a risk if you as a male engage in unprotected sex that's not you monogomus partner and Stds

I believe in choice but red states like LA aren't gonna change their pro life position it's a heavily pro life Catholic state like MO unlike NY, MA, NJ pro choice Italian's

They say you as a female can take it in the second trimester but it's required to have higher dosage

[Person Man]

https://twitter.com/abc15/status/1608977399852728320

So the 15 week ban is now seen as the update to the total ban. I guess it’s a reasonable compromise though probably slightly too restrictive for a pro-choice state.

[Gass3268]

Good news out of an unexpected place!

https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1611043673147310098?s=20

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Good news out of an unexpected place!

https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1611043673147310098?s=20

Reproductive freedom marches on, despite the efforts of theocrats.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

What is the process for a constitutional amendment in South Carolina?  Does it require a public vote?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Abortion will remain illegal in Idaho:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/idaho-supreme-court-upholds-abortion-law-after-planned-parenthood-challenge?utm_campaign=later-linkinbio-foxnews&utm_content=later-32141901&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkin.bio

[Person Man]

Good news out of an unexpected place!

https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1611043673147310098?s=20

Reproductive freedom marches on, despite the efforts of theocrats.

They could probably get a 80 day ban... not a 40 day ban...

[Skill and Chance]

What is the process for a constitutional amendment in South Carolina?  Does it require a public vote?

Yes.  A statewide referendum is required to approve a constitutional amendment in every state except Delaware (where it requires a 2/3rds vote of the state legislature in 2 consecutive sessions).

However, also note this decision was 3/2 and 1 of the 3 hits mandatory retirement this year.  The legislature unilaterally appoints all state judges in SC.

[MarkD]

Good news out of an unexpected place!

https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1611043673147310098?s=20

So what in the state constitution of South Carolina guarantees a right to privacy? Did the SCSC do as good a job of interpreting the state constitution and precedent as the SCOTUS did in Roe v. Wade?

[Skill and Chance]

Good news out of an unexpected place!

https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1611043673147310098?s=20

So what in the state constitution of South Carolina guarantees a right to privacy? Did the SCSC do as good a job of interpreting the state constitution and precedent as the SCOTUS did in Roe v. Wade?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and unreasonable invasions of privacy shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, the person or thing to be seized, and the information to be obtained.

- the SC Constitution's Declaration of Rights section

The direct application to abortion could be questionable, but this is nothing like the argument for substantive due process penumbras in the federal constitution.  There's an explicit written right to privacy in the SC constitution.  FWIW 10+ states have this.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

What is the process for a constitutional amendment in South Carolina?  Does it require a public vote?

One of the justices will retire next year and the legislature will likely stack the court with someone who will rule in the other direction.

[MarkD]

Good news out of an unexpected place!

https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1611043673147310098?s=20

So what in the state constitution of South Carolina guarantees a right to privacy? Did the SCSC do as good a job of interpreting the state constitution and precedent as the SCOTUS did in Roe v. Wade?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and unreasonable invasions of privacy shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, the person or thing to be seized, and the information to be obtained.

- the SC Constitution's Declaration of Rights section

The direct application to abortion could be questionable, but this is nothing like the argument for substantive due process penumbras in the federal constitution.  There's an explicit written right to privacy in the SC constitution.  FWIW 10+ states have this.

Thank you for this information, but I disagree with whether or not this is anything like substantive due process. This is exactly like it; judges giving a constitutional provision that was intended to only address procedural fairness a meaning that also embraces substantive appropriateness ("reasonableness"). Obviously the phrase "unreasonable invasions of privacy" is an addition to the text of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. I have already seen too many people misinterpreting the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution -- Justice Douglas when he wrote Griswold, Justice Blackmun when he wrote Roe, and Atlas user Vosem, who has treated the Fourth Amendment the same way that Douglas and Blackmun did.
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=527150.msg8834819#msg8834819
If we were to accept that the South Carolina Supreme Court did its job correctly when it has interpreted this "unreasonable invasions of privacy" clause in the South Carolina Declaration of Rights, the people of that state wanted for this clause to be a comprehensive source of judicial review for determination whether any and all legislation that the state legislature ever passed is "reasonable" or not. I would like to see whether the state Supreme Court ever produced historical evidence that THAT is what the people of the state wanted. Otherwise this ruling is obviously a display of judicial activism.

[Badger]

Good news out of an unexpected place!

https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1611043673147310098?s=20

So what in the state constitution of South Carolina guarantees a right to privacy? Did the SCSC do as good a job of interpreting the state constitution and precedent as the SCOTUS did in Roe v. Wade?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and unreasonable invasions of privacy shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, the person or thing to be seized, and the information to be obtained.

- the SC Constitution's Declaration of Rights section

The direct application to abortion could be questionable, but this is nothing like the argument for substantive due process penumbras in the federal constitution.  There's an explicit written right to privacy in the SC constitution.  FWIW 10+ states have this.

Thank you for this information, but I disagree with whether or not this is anything like substantive due process. This is exactly like it; judges giving a constitutional provision that was intended to only address procedural fairness a meaning that also embraces substantive appropriateness ("reasonableness"). Obviously the phrase "unreasonable invasions of privacy" is an addition to the text of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. I have already seen too many people misinterpreting the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution -- Justice Douglas when he wrote Griswold, Justice Blackmun when he wrote Roe, and Atlas user Vosem, who has treated the Fourth Amendment the same way that Douglas and Blackmun did.
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=527150.msg8834819#msg8834819
If we were to accept that the South Carolina Supreme Court did its job correctly when it has interpreted this "unreasonable invasions of privacy" clause in the South Carolina Declaration of Rights, the people of that state wanted for this clause to be a comprehensive source of judicial review for determination whether any and all legislation that the state legislature ever passed is "reasonable" or not. I would like to see whether the state Supreme Court ever produced historical evidence that THAT is what the people of the state wanted. Otherwise this ruling is obviously a display of judicial activism.

Those are indeed words.

[Person Man]

Good news out of an unexpected place!

https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1611043673147310098?s=20

So what in the state constitution of South Carolina guarantees a right to privacy? Did the SCSC do as good a job of interpreting the state constitution and precedent as the SCOTUS did in Roe v. Wade?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and unreasonable invasions of privacy shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, the person or thing to be seized, and the information to be obtained.

- the SC Constitution's Declaration of Rights section

The direct application to abortion could be questionable, but this is nothing like the argument for substantive due process penumbras in the federal constitution.  There's an explicit written right to privacy in the SC constitution.  FWIW 10+ states have this.

Thank you for this information, but I disagree with whether or not this is anything like substantive due process. This is exactly like it; judges giving a constitutional provision that was intended to only address procedural fairness a meaning that also embraces substantive appropriateness ("reasonableness"). Obviously the phrase "unreasonable invasions of privacy" is an addition to the text of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. I have already seen too many people misinterpreting the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution -- Justice Douglas when he wrote Griswold, Justice Blackmun when he wrote Roe, and Atlas user Vosem, who has treated the Fourth Amendment the same way that Douglas and Blackmun did.
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=527150.msg8834819#msg8834819
If we were to accept that the South Carolina Supreme Court did its job correctly when it has interpreted this "unreasonable invasions of privacy" clause in the South Carolina Declaration of Rights, the people of that state wanted for this clause to be a comprehensive source of judicial review for determination whether any and all legislation that the state legislature ever passed is "reasonable" or not. I would like to see whether the state Supreme Court ever produced historical evidence that THAT is what the people of the state wanted. Otherwise this ruling is obviously a display of judicial activism.

Those are indeed words.

Well, I can’t read so I don’t give a .

[John Dule]

Good news out of an unexpected place!

https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1611043673147310098?s=20

Reproductive freedom marches on, despite the efforts of theocrats.

37 down, 13 to go!

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1617992411283693568

[Ferguson97]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1617992411283693568

Please, keep doubling down!

[Person Man]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1617992411283693568

Let’s make bankruptcy, divorce, homelessness, and being poor unthinkable, too! Basically make mercy something that has absolutely no place to society, or at least in government.

[Progressive Pessimist]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1617992411283693568

Please, keep doubling down!

By now it's octupling down.

[Ragnaroni]

It should have been a matter left to the states since the beginning...

[Ferguson97]

It should have been a matter left to the states since the beginning...

No.