News Roe v. Wade overturned

[Brainonska511]

Why is that relevant?

It's only relevant if you think that every right needs to be explicitly enumerated, which is a pretty ridiculous idea.

 

[fskimospy]

It's only relevant if you think that every right needs to be explicitly enumerated, which is a pretty ridiculous idea.

It’s not even about that. It’s that their legal reasoning in two cases decided days apart are directly at odds with one another in order to achieve their desired outcome.

 

[dlerious]

Yea. What they care about is control. And, they won't stop until they find success. Roe vs Wade is just the beginning.

The positive is this could backfire on Republicans in a very big way. Especially if our rights are eroded within the next few years. There is a PA race in November. The Republican candidate is a hardcore Evangelical Christian who has said that he wants to make PA a Christian state. Whatever that means. The bible taught in public schools? Lessons taught on Adam and Eve, and the great flood as proof without a shred of evidence? Weekly mandatory prayer, or else you could face fines, or jail time? This is getting real my friend.

When I taught in Thailand we had 1-2 hours of mandatory Buddhist prayers, and scripture the children and teachers had to say about their king every morning. Its was indoctrination 101. Every frekin morning. You either enaged in this practice or else faced a penalty. In the sweltering heat. Sayings like "the king is great" This type of stuff could be coming to America.

Are you talking about the far right, pro Trump, MAGA, Qanon Mastriano? Thank the democrats for running ads for him in PA.

Democrats' plan to boost extremists in GOP primaries could backfire

Democrats spent more money to boost election denier Doug Mastriano than he did. That could come back to haunt them.

www.salon.com

 

[Ajay]

One of the things that came out of Roe vs Wade was real sex education and efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies with real world solutions, which is why abortion rates have been dropping since the early 80’s.

religious conservatives will push abstinence only again. Roe vs wade repeal is the tip of the iceberg, if you think this is where this stops, then you’re only fooling yourself.

p.s. - how ya been 😁

You are probably right. I haven’t looked into sex education in the public schools.

I'm not fooling myself vis-a-vis the impact of this ruling. The US is going to go through its most convulsed period since the civil war. But we've been heading there for a while, this is just going to be the breaking point. Whatever the nature of the coming war is, I just hope we find a way to survive as a nation.

Been doing okay. Stupid spinal stenosis has gotten worse so I have to get two epidural shots in 10 days. Hopefully, it’ll keep me off the surgeons table. Taking care of our aging parents is getting time consuming, but, that put us first above their own needs for 20 years, so we are happy to do what it takes. I’m just glad they are still alive, aside from my dad. Hope you and your family are well!

 

[shortylickens]

It's only relevant if you think that every right needs to be explicitly enumerated, which is a pretty ridiculous idea.

According to the constitution, anything is supposed to be allowed up until the government decides to ban it.
So yeah, if something is getting attacked, like marriage equality, it either needs protection under the current laws or a new law that actually gets enforced.
As written, both slavery and segregation were unconstitutional and illegal, but millions of straight white males wanted it, so it stuck around for hundreds of years. We needed multiple amendments and bills to fucking remind people what they were doing was not acceptable. And those amendments almost always came attached with blood and pain and sweat and tears. They werent free.

And now here we are again. We're gonna have to fight for equality once more. Because a sizable chunk of the population doesnt actually understand what America is really about. They think "educate yourself" means watch Fox News all day long.

 

[Mai72]

Are you talking about the far right, pro Trump, MAGA, Qanon Mastriano? Thank the democrats for running ads for him in PA.

Democrats' plan to boost extremists in GOP primaries could backfire

Democrats spent more money to boost election denier Doug Mastriano than he did. That could come back to haunt them.

www.salon.com

Yea, that was an awful mistake.

 

[Jaskalas]

Why is that relevant? The discussion here is that when analyzing an amendment SCOTUS decided laws after an amendment didn’t matter in one case and did matter in another. This means they were judging based on outcomes, not neutral legal logic.

Are you seriously asking...
Why does it matter if the federal government has a constitutional law protecting guns?
VS the complete absence of abortion in federal law?

Because the absence of federal action means it goes before the States. It is up to them.
The existence of federal law, especially the constitution, means the Feds have the final say.

It is perfectly consistent based on the written letter of the law.

 

[dlerious]

Yep. When it’s about gun rights laws passed after the amendment don’t matter. When it’s about abortion rights laws passed after the amendment do. This is not different courts over time, this is the same courts’ decisions, days apart.

Why is that relevant? The discussion here is that when analyzing an amendment SCOTUS decided laws after an amendment didn’t matter in one case and did matter in another. This means they were judging based on outcomes, not neutral legal logic.

What amendment are you talking about then?

 

[zinfamous]

Much agreed. Which is why so many millions are upset with the Jao Baiduns installation.

the fuck is this?

 

[Jaskalas]

It’s not even about that. It’s that their legal reasoning in two cases decided days apart are directly at odds with one another in order to achieve their desired outcome.

One is in the Constitution, the other is not.
It is mind boggling that you cannot tell the difference between something explicitly written down and not.

 

[Captante]

Jao Baiduns

the fuck is this?

Joe Biden's North Korean cousin?



*(sorry... I'll see my way back to OT now)

 

[fskimospy]

What amendment are you talking about then?

The 2nd and 14th amendments. For the 2nd amendment SCOTUS declared that laws passed after it didn’t matter. For the 14th they decided they did. There is no consistent rationale here, just that they wanted to find a way to reach their preferred outcome.

 

[fskimospy]

One is in the Constitution, the other is not.
It is mind boggling that you cannot tell the difference between something explicitly written down and not.

I genuinely do not understand what you are talking about. Are you saying the 14th amendment isn’t part of the constitution?

 

[zinfamous]

Fully agree on your second point.

As far as conservatives not respecting Federalism, I don't think they should be called 'conservative' anymore. Conservatives are supposed to be against big government. Can't have actual conversations with people calling them Nazis or Fascists. So for now I'll stick with 'right-wingers' unless anyone on here has a better (to open conversations with them!) idea for accurate labels.

Fascist is the correct label for the current Republican Party. If they don’t like it, they can stop being fascists.

THis.

I mean, I guess you can call them Brown Shirts (or Black Shirts, if you prefer to stick with the more accurate comparison of the Trump/Mussolini brand of the least talented, least-read, least useful type of mob fascists that managed to hold a nation in thrall for several decades)

Either way, Fascists is the best way to label the GOP and anyone who votes for a single Republican, since at least 1980. They haven't changed much since then.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Looking at past behavior and projecting future behavior of this court you're wildly optimistic. There seems to be no line they are not willing to cross.

What past behavior supports they will allow states to make laws governing their residence interstate travel, making it illegal for them to go to other states and partake in activities/medical treatment/abortion/ what have you, that are legal in the state they are traveling to because it's illegal in their home state? There is no legal standing or behavior that supports such an assumption.

 

[zinfamous]

One of the things that came out of Roe vs Wade was real sex education and efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies with real world solutions, which is why abortion rates have been dropping since the early 80’s.

religious conservatives will push abstinence only again. Roe vs wade repeal is the tip of the iceberg, if you think this is where this stops, then you’re only fooling yourself.

p.s. - how ya been 😁

the reality is that making abortion illegal will only increase the number of deaths and outright murders in this country. Because abortion itself can't ever possibly be considered a murder (it would be insanely stupid to try and argue from a medical or biological perspective that abortion is murder), then only with illegal abortion are more and more women going to be murdered by pregnancies that will kill them, which the fascist state where they live will force them to die, or will die from doing what humans have always done, and long before they invented a Christian god, or any fucking god that humans have ever created--they will attempt to end their pregnancies, and it will be ever more dangerous to do so.

This country will never be great as long as a single evangelical Christian lives here and has any kind of public voice, about anything. They are the cancer that we must eradicate.

 

[Captante]

How about a "bounty/lawsuit" law along the lines of what Texas already has in place which completely side-steps federal law by turning the matter into a civil issue and relegating enforcement to individuals?

I could swear I read that someplace already added "aiding in travel to get an abortion" to the list of stuff that can be sued over awhile back?

Seems to me that corporations who fund employee's travel to get an abortion may end up being sued? (although Google/M$ etc are FAR less attractive targets then the old lady down the block with their armies of lawyers)

 

[pmv]

What past behavior supports they will allow states to make laws governing their residence interstate travel, making it illegal for them to go to other states and partake in activities/medical treatment/abortion/ what have you, that are legal in the state they are traveling to because it's illegal in their home state? There is no legal standing or behavior that supports such an assumption.

Well, they've already tried it, even before the overturning of Roe.

Missouri House blocks effort to limit access to out-of-state abortions • Missouri Independent

The proposal would have made it illegal to perform or “aid or abet” an abortion for a Missouri resident — regardless of where it occurs.

missouriindependent.com

I wouldn't put it past the Supremes to find some tortuous reasoning to allow such laws. Quite intrigued to see what they would come up with, in fact.

A discussion of the topic here

https://scholarship.law.pitt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1515&context=fac_articles

Seems the argument against laws like the one Missouri attempted depends heavily on the precedent of Bigelow v. Virginia, but it doesn't seem unimaginable that this court could decide that ruling was "wrong", and in any case states could just do it anyway as it would take time for it to wind its way to the Supremes.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

There is no amendment for abortion. I don't think there's a federal law legalizing abortion either.

Again, say it with me everyone: The Constitution does not grant rights, it limits what the government is allowed to do.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

How about a "bounty/lawsuit" law along the lines of what Texas already has in place which completely side-steps federal law by turning the matter into a civil issue and relegating enforcement to individuals?

I could swear I read that someplace already added "aiding in travel to get an abortion" to the list of stuff that can be sued over awhile back?

Seems to me that corporations who fund employee's travel to get an abortion may end up being sued? (although Google/M$ etc are FAR less attractive targets then the old lady down the block with their armies of lawyers)

Sounds great, I'd love to put a bounty on anyone attempting to restrict any humans' bodily autonomy.

 

[Captante]

Sounds great, I'd love to put a bounty on anyone attempting to restrict any humans' bodily autonomy.

I agree but I was speculating about what kind of laws red states might enact in an attempt to limit/prevent women crossing state lines to get an abortion.

It doesn't take much imagination at all.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

So you are arguing hypotheticals and personal theories as if they are proven fact?

Uncle Thomas just wrote yesterday that Texas should have the authority to criminally prosecute gay people for having sex in their home if the police come in and witness it. There is no low this fascist court can't slink under.

 

[dlerious]

The 2nd and 14th amendments. For the 2nd amendment SCOTUS declared that laws passed after it didn’t matter. For the 14th they decided they did. There is no consistent rationale here, just that they wanted to find a way to reach their preferred outcome.

I don't see anything about abortion in the 14th amendment. IANAL, but it appears to me that they are leaving it up to the states to decide whether or not they want to allow or deny abortions (absent an explicit federal law or amendment).

 

[HomerJS]

I don't see anything about abortion in the 14th amendment. IANAL, but it appears to me that they are leaving it up to the states to decide whether or not they want to allow or deny abortions (absent an explicit federal law or amendment).

Same argument will be used for contraception, gay marriage, interracial marriage.

Next rights to fall

 

[fskimospy]

I don't see anything about abortion in the 14th amendment. IANAL, but it appears to me that they are leaving it up to the states to decide whether or not they want to allow or deny abortions (absent an explicit federal law or amendment).

Whether or not abortion is mentioned in the 14th amendment is not relevant to my point.

My point was that SCOTUS said subsequent legislation could be used to inform their decision when it came to the 14th amendment but said subsequent legislation could not be used for the 2nd amendment. That they were analyzing abortion in regards to the 14th amendment is irrelevant. Both amendments have equal standing.