US-Roe vs Wade overturned

[J.C.MacSwell]

On the bright side (if there is any)...the name of this thread is now accurate...

[Sensei]

"Pro-life" is similar newspeak like "Patriot Act" and similar.. to distract and mislead average citizen..

 

Oddly enough, beyond my comprehension, they are often gun lovers..

 

[geordief]

Does the overturning of Roe v Wade bring the US legal system into further disrepute at a time it is most needed as a bulwark against the Big Lie  and its attack on democracy in the States?

Edited June 24, 2022 by geordief

[dimreepr]

On 6/21/2022 at 4:23 PM, mistermack said:

Pro-life is a real lie. Humans are destroying life all around the planet, because we are destroying bio-diversity. Each aborted fetus is actually a bonus for "life". In numbers of humans we are way past what the living world can tolerate. 

If you were really pro-life, you would be in favour of mass sterilization, and a one-child policy, as well as free abortions. 

I am, but not compulsory.  If I was world dictator, I would remove financial incentives towards big families, by reducing state child support, and providing guaranteed pensions in developing countries.

Pro-life is a dichotomy; for instance, if we choose not to procreate, who's gonna feed the wolves???

[Peterkin]

22 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Oddly enough, beyond my comprehension, they are often gun lovers..

God, apparently, loves guns and unborn humans. What He's not so crazy about are women and children.

19 minutes ago, geordief said:

Does the overturning of Roe v Wade bring the US legal system into disrepute at a time it is most needed as a bulwark against the Big Lie  and its attack on democracy in the States?

Among other calamities, yes.

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

God, apparently, loves guns and unborn humans. What He's not so crazy about are women and children.

If they love the unborn, you'd think they wouldn't cause so many miscarriages

[Peterkin]

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

If they love the unborn, you'd think they wouldn't cause so many miscarriages

They didn't. The woman's original sin (i.e. being sexually active, with or without her consent) caused them - and those unbaptized babies ain't gettin into my heaven, neither! See, it's all right (Thump) here (Thump!) in (Thump!!) this (THUMP) Slogan.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Peterkin

[toucana]

An interesting article by Jill Lepore published in the New Yorker in May 2022 makes the point that the 4,000 words of the US Constitution written in 1787 contain no references to women

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-there-are-no-women-in-the-constitution

 

Quote

“Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is surprised that there is so little written about abortion in a four-thousand-word document crafted by fifty-five men in 1787. As it happens, there is also nothing at all in that document, which sets out fundamental law, about pregnancy, uteruses, vaginas, fetuses, placentas, menstrual blood, breasts, or breast milk. There is nothing in that document about women at all. Most consequentially, there is nothing in that document—or in the circumstances under which it was written—that suggests its authors imagined women as part of the political community embraced by the phrase “We the People.” There were no women among the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were no women among the hundreds of people who participated in ratifying conventions in the states. There were no women judges. There were no women legislators. At the time, women could neither hold office nor run for office, and, except in New Jersey, and then only fleetingly, women could not vote. Legally, most women did not exist as persons.”

 

That is by no means the end of of the derelictions in the Constitution either. It doesn’t mention, black people, Jews, or people who identify as LGBT for example; nor does it have anything lucid to say about climate change, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, the internet, the expansion of the  universe, the Hubble constant, the nature of dark matter, SETI - or a dozen other topics of pressing interest either.

 

Most critical of all, the US constitution (in Ailto’s view at least) has nothing to say about a fundamental right to privacy. That at least seems to be the cornerstone of his decision to overthow 50 years of stare decisis, and to throw the USA into legislative chaos.

[Sensei]

53 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

God, apparently, loves guns and unborn humans. What He's not so crazy about are women and children.

That's their twisted version..

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

If they love the unborn, you'd think they wouldn't cause so many miscarriages

Expect the prenatal testing system to collapse. Who wants to know that their future child is terminally ill and nothing will be done about it for months.. ?

Miscarriage is a natural method to prevent the birth of a terminally ill fetus, that would not have survived anyway..

 

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, toucana said:

 

Most critical of all, the US constitution (in Ailto’s view at least) has nothing to say about a fundamental right to privacy. That at least seems to be the cornerstone of his decision to overthow 50 years of stare decisis, and to throw the USA into legislative chaos.

Justice Thomas's note on how this opens up the reversal of other (some very old) decisions on contraception, gay sex, and same-sex marriage, was chilling.  He has basically said out loud what conservatives across the country were vehemently denying after the Alito leak this spring: that a Roe/Casey reversal would put other well-established rights in the crosshairs.  Oops.  

(Welcome!  Nice to see another fellow veteran of SCF.)

Also ironic to hear Conservatives stress the importance of the Second Amendment as an overarching federal protection, but then just shrug and say "ehhhhh, it's up to the states to decide" when it comes to rights clearly protected in amendments like the 9th and 14th.  More ironic still, given that the original purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the autonomy and rights of individual states.  

2 hours ago, geordief said:

Does the overturning of Roe v Wade bring the US legal system into further disrepute at a time it is most needed as a bulwark against the Big Lie  and its attack on democracy in the States?

Let me put this delicately: the decision today is taking a large smelly bowel movement on a cornerstone of constitutional law, the concept of stare decisis, one that is flouted only in the case of horrendously awful decisions like the infamous Plessy v Ferguson (which established legal race segregation).  

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, geordief said:

Does the overturning of Roe v Wade bring the US legal system into further disrepute at a time it is most needed as a bulwark against the Big Lie  and its attack on democracy in the States?

It gets even darker, meaner and uglier. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/salvadoran-women-jailed-decades-miscarriages-stillbirths-warn-us-abort-rcna33035

Quote

Abortion rights activists say the law has led to widespread human rights violations against Salvadoran women and should serve as a cautionary tale for the United States, where more than 20 states are expected to ban abortion if the Supreme Court overturns the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling in the coming weeks.

 

And, guess what! Rich women will still be able check into a private clinic in any state they want, or Europe and not suffer any consequences from their little indiscretions. And the bottom will fall out of the market for newborns, so all the poor women will be stuck with the extra babies, and The Holy Economy can't possibly support all those sponging unwed mothers, so they'll be forced on work-fare, and all the pediatric, school and family social programs will have to be cut. No prizes for guessing what colour a disproportionate number of those who 'fell through the cracks' will be.  

...or what will happen to the minimum wage and migrant workers when thousands of workfare slaves take over the lowest levels of employment. Oh yes, tFoE have won a major offensive. 

(the forces of evil)

[Phi for All]

Public confidence in SCOTUS sinks to 25%: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/06/23/public-confidence-in-supreme-court-sinks-to-25-poll-says/?sh=4c7171975fc5

Quote

Only one in four Americans say they are confident in the Supreme Court—the lowest rate on record—according to a Gallup poll released Thursday, with respondents answering the question in the weeks leading up to the court’s much-anticipated decision that could overturn Roe v. Wade.

Another branch of US government that does NOT represent the will of the People.

[StringJunky]

From Clarence, I can only say 'Moron':

CONSERVATIVE JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS, IN A CONCURRING OPINION:

"Because the Court properly applies our substantive due process precedents to reject the fabrication of a constitutional right to abortion, and because this case does not present the opportunity to reject substantive due process entirely, I join the Court's opinion."

"For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold (which protected the right to contraception), Lawrence (which invalidated state laws banning sodomy), and Obergefell (which legalized gay marriage nationwide)."

"Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity."

[J.C.MacSwell]

33 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Public confidence in SCOTUS sinks to 25%: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/06/23/public-confidence-in-supreme-court-sinks-to-25-poll-says/?sh=4c7171975fc5

Another branch of US government that does NOT represent the will of the People.

Barely more than the Dems and GOP combined...

 

(I think I'm kidding...I don't really know)

44 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Another branch of US government that does NOT represent the will of the People.

Was it ever there mandate to do that?

[StringJunky]

40 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Was it ever there mandate to do that?

What is the point of their existence otherwise?

Edited June 24, 2022 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

Clearly leaving it to a dysfunctional Congress may be a dumb move and ill timed...but it's not clear they are wrong with respect to their duties.

[mistermack]

While I am pro-abortion, I can hardly go with the general tone of this thread. The truth is that making abortion more difficult will result in winners as well as losers. 

It's not as black and white as most posters are portraying it. At the end of the day, not all unwanted pregnancies are the result of rape, or all the other long list of nasties. Some really are just down to people being their own worst enemies. Women and men. Self-inflicted grief is harder to sympathise with than bolts from the blue. And talking of self-inflicted grief, it's ironic that many of the people who will suffer most from this are people who never bother to vote. "because it don't change anything". 

And of course, the winners will be the people who get born, who wouldn't have. And the mothers who will be glad after the fact, that they didn't abort. And they do exist.

I'm giving the other side of the argument. Like I said, I would personally keep abortion, but I don't pretend that it's a clear-cut choice. Both sides of the argument leave a nasty taste in the mouth. In an ideal world, nobody would want or need one.  

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

What is the point of their existence otherwise?

Interpret law (to my understanding) and ensure it holds with the Constitution.

I'm pretty sure it's not to evaluate and affirm the will of the people. (though that could be the default in some cases? I'm not sure)

[StringJunky]

“It’s the best Supreme Court the 19th Century has yet produced.” — Stephen King

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Another branch of US government that does NOT represent the will of the People.

They aren’t supposed to. They aren’t elected. They’re supposed to decide if laws follow the Constitution.

As Larry Flynt put it

“Majority rule will only work if you're considering individual rights. You can't have five wolves and one sheep vote on what they want to have for supper“ 

What this court is doing is taking away those rights. That the majority wants the rights means there is potential leverage for legislative action. But that’s blocked by some senators who don’t feel they have to bow to the will of the people. And until people vote out the bad actors, they won’t.
 

20 minutes ago, mistermack said:

While I am pro-abortion, I can hardly go with the general tone of this thread. The truth is that making abortion more difficult will result in winners as well as losers. 

It's not as black and white as most posters are portraying it. At the end of the day, not all unwanted pregnancies are the result of rape, or all the other long list of nasties.

So what?

Either you have the right or you don’t. That incest or rape don’t account for all unwanted pregnancies doesn’t matter a whole lot. Those are just the most egregious cases, used as examples, because many of the barbaric laws won’t even make these exceptions.

 

20 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Some really are just down to people being their own worst enemies. Women and men. Self-inflicted grief is harder to sympathise with than bolts from the blue. And talking of self-inflicted grief, it's ironic that many of the people who will suffer most from this are people who never bother to vote. "because it don't change anything". 

And of course, the winners will be the people who get born, who wouldn't have. And the mothers who will be glad after the fact, that they didn't abort. And they do exist.

I'm giving the other side of the argument. Like I said, I would personally keep abortion, but I don't pretend that it's a clear-cut choice. Both sides of the argument leave a nasty taste in the mouth. In an ideal world, nobody would want or need one.  

It doesn’t have to be a clear-cut choice, as long as the woman is the one making it, and not some old guy forcing the decision on someone else. The opposite side of forced birth isn’t forced abortion. 

[Peterkin]

40 minutes ago, mistermack said:

While I am pro-abortion, I can hardly go with the general tone of this thread. The truth is that making abortion more difficult will result in winners as well as losers. 

Just tell us the winners. It's a shorter list.

40 minutes ago, mistermack said:

It's not as black and white as most posters are portraying it.

Unfortunately, it';s always really been about Black and White.

40 minutes ago, mistermack said:

At the end of the day, not all unwanted pregnancies are the result of rape, or all the other long list of nasties.

Not all. That means the collateral damage is not 100% - only ... what? 50% 20% ... Just the silly girls who fell for a lie and irresponsible grown women who got drunk at a party? Isn't the punishment for such moral missteps a wee bit disproportionate?

40 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Some really are just down to people being their own worst enemies. Women and men.

What's the men's penance? In olden days, they - some of them, at least - got stuck with the bill for an abortion; a very very few pay child support. Most of the women affected can't afford a paternity suit, so they just walk away - and more of them will. 

40 minutes ago, mistermack said:

And of course, the winners will be the people who get born, who wouldn't have.

Do not count on this!There are worse things capitalist medieval America can do to a bastard than not let him  - or, more pathetically, her - come into their world.

40 minutes ago, mistermack said:

And the mothers who will be glad after the fact, that they didn't abort.

Hooray for the 2%! Phooey on the rest.

 

40 minutes ago, mistermack said:

In an ideal world, nobody would want or need one.  

I suspect the non-ideal world was not shaped by the people who will be most intimately affected by this new status quo, but rather more by the people who have been pushing this particular manure-pill down this particular incline for decades. Worlds do not come into being by the decree of gods or philosopher-kings;  they are shaped by those with the power and influence to do so. That was never going to be a teenager in love. 

40 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Self-inflicted grief is harder to sympathise with than bolts from the blue. And talking of self-inflicted grief, it's ironic that many of the people who will suffer most from this are people who never bother to vote. "because it don't change anything". 

Really? I did not know that!

Edited June 24, 2022 by Peterkin

[mistermack]

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

So what?

Either you have the right or you don’t.

Rights are what you get given by those around you. If you believe in a higher power that dishes them out, then that's your "right". 

 

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

It doesn’t have to be a clear-cut choice, as long as the woman is the one making it, and not some old guy forcing the decision on someone else.

Presumably you would baulk at the woman killing her own hours-old baby. Are you one of the old guys forcing her not to kill it? I am. That's the essence of the disagreement. 

If you regard a fetus as the same as a day-old baby, then you believe that they should have the same rights. 

I personally don't. I regard them as different. But the difference diminishes with every day of the pregnancy. To the point where, even though I'm pro choice, I would ban abortions of viable fetuses. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

15 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Unfortunately, it';s always really been about Black and White.

How exactly is supporting the rights of a Black fetus racist?

[Peterkin]

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How exactly is supporting the rights of a Black fetus racist?

What rights are being 'supported'?

That wasn't the subject, and that wasn't my reference https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8274866/

Quote

Efforts were made to bring social conservatives, especially pro-lifers, into the Republican party with scare tactics used in the wording of direct mailings. In the late 1970s, fundamentalist Christians became outraged by Supreme Court decisions banning school prayer and legalizing abortion and by Jimmy Carter's decision to withdraw tax-exempt status from segregated church schools. This group was mobilized by radio and television preachers, especially televangelist Jerry Falwell who also used scare tactics to promote his Moral Majority.

Traditionally, the anti-choice factions also disapprove of birth control and accessible medical care for the poor. Guess who tends to be poor! Guess why!  Now, tell me exactly what post-natal support will be offered to the unwanted and unhealthy (because the mother is, and there is no prenatal care available to her) child of a scared 16-year-old with a new baby and no job? Free vaccinations and daycare with a safe, clean accommodation and job-training for the mothers next door, wholesome meals provided, so that they can breast-feed their infants? 

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

What rights are being 'supported'?

Serious question?

Right to live. Right to avoid a painful death.