US Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade

And values women .

So much anti abortion sentiment appears to come from an an angle that seeks to punish and criminalise instead of helping and supporting .

The problem with leaving it up to the individual states is

1. Is it in the interests of the majority in that state or is it just laws being made for the majority a powerful minority?

2. Not acceptable to criminalise those that then have to travel to have a termination and those that help ...

It is very cruel and retrograde no matter how it is presented.

On another note while I find this thread and the comments excellent and interesting , it is surprising, to say the least , that their is no thread discussion of our own current local interest story about the proposed National Maternity Hospital and the SVUH setting up a holding company with a catholic agenda to lease the land to the state .. have I missed it ?

The Republican voter would ordinarily be cheering something like this as a campaign promise spectacularly delivered, but they aren't, because of the political backlash of actually getting rid of abortions.

Reading the above, I’m wondering is there an assumption that Republicans generally speaking care about abortion to even the same degree as they care about other issues besides abortion. I think the perception is certainly that they care about preventing abortion, at least it’s framed that way, but even from the Republican Charter you linked to earlier, Republicans don’t think in those terms -

DEFEND AMERICAN VALUES

• Continue nominating constitutionalist Supreme Court and lower court judges
• Protect unborn life through every means available
• Defend the freedoms of religious believers and organizations
• Support the exercise of Second Amendment rights

We know from numerous surveys that one of the main reasons given for why women have abortions is because of socioeconomic circumstances, so it would seem reasonable to focus on addressing the underlying socioeconomic circumstances than focusing on funding abortion providers. While I understand the reasons why you suggested Obama was faced with some difficult choices, the fact that he chose to withdraw funding from Texas Womens Healthcare programme because they wouldn’t provide abortions is hardly extending an olive branch, it’s putting people on low incomes living in poverty in an even poorer position -

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-contraception-texas-idUSBRE82E1CR20120316

Again, Trump restored funding -

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/01/22/donald-trump-restores-womens-health-funding-texas-stripped-obama/amp/

Not only did Trump restore funding for women’s healthcare in Texas though, he promised to remove funding for abortions provided by Planned Parenthood, and he delivered on that promise -

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1357/defund-planned-parenthood/

It wasn’t the only thing of course which forced something of a rethink in Planned Parenthood’s business model. At the same time, Cecile Richards, director of PP, could feel the chilly breeze of a change in the political winds, which forced her to throw the middle-class white women gathered in solidarity with each other, under the bus, by telling them they needed to “do better”, rather than leaving it all up to “women of colour” -

Richards credited women of color with many of these successes.

"These victories were led and made possible by women of color," Richards said. 

She urged white women to join forces with women of color to change the nation.

"So, white women, listen up. We've got to do better. ... It is not up to women of color to save this country from itself. That's on all of us. That's on all of us," said Richards, who also heads the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

"The good news is when we are in full on sisterhood, women are the most powerful, political force in America," she said.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/21/us/women-march-cecila-richards-trnd/index.html

A rabble-rousing speech that did more to divide the women present, than it did to extend an invitation to the women who weren’t. It was necessary though, because in spite of the fact that PP revenues for 2018/19 were $1.6 Bn ($600m of that coming from Government), they need to justify their continuing existence, somehow.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/2e/da/2eda3f50-82aa-4ddb-acce-c2854c4ea80b/2018-2019_annual_report.pdf

Cecile did a rather quick exit stage left after that performance.

Which brings us back to what do Black Americans really want from their elected representatives, because they sure as hell didn’t get it with Obama, and they weren’t going to get it with Hillary, which left them voting for a President they didn’t want; it came down to a choice between which party and which candidates best represent the issues that Black Americans actually care about, and they were faced with the same choice again in 2020:

Abortion just doesn’t normally register among the issues that Americans actually care about. A small minority of people will keep pushing it, but the vast majority of Americans care more about other issues which they feel are of greater importance than abortion for the tiny minority of middle class white women who want to keep pushing it by claiming abortion is an issue which affects all women. In reality what women care more about is being supported in being able to provide for themselves and their families, rather than feeling like they have to have an abortion because they feel they can’t afford to have a child, with that being portrayed by some people as “choice”. It’s not a choice when women are forced into having an abortion by necessity due to socioeconomic circumstances.

There's a fair amount of spinning in this post, but for now, let's just say that what we're discussing here, is the repeal of Roe V. Wade. Misinformation like 'funding abortion providers' (when in actuality, the Hyde amendment prevents the provider from using the funds for abortion -which is why Planned parenthood, for example, refuses to accept them.)

And, 600million for medical services that are provided by the USG, is peanuts compared to the enormous needs for child support in the US. We're talking tens of billions if not hundreds of billions that would need to be provided in the form of health care, schools, maternal and parental leave, etc.

Finally, changing subjects, Alito's reasoning could be used for the Feds to stop funding public schools. Republicans are champing at the bit at that one. They're not in the Constitution in fact.

https://www.salon.com/2022/05/05/life-after-roe-are-already-targeting-the-right-to-a-public-education/

Is there anything in the Constitution mandating a military?

Good to know we have someone here who can speak for the majority of women in the US.

But yeah Republicans have campaigned over this for years, the various supreme court judges lied about their opinions on this under oath because no one cares. It is weird, if no one cares then surely they aren't getting abortions and we can just agree to keep Roe vs Wade right? It is a weird thing with Republicans and social laws that they claim no one cares but they still want it the way they designed even though they seem not to care. We don't care but it absolutely has to be this way is a really weird sentence but seems to be what you think Republicans are.

As you say many black americans are left with difficult choices come election time as to which party will actually do something to help them (or not actively hurt them). It is an issue with first past the post in that you are more looking at who you want to avoid instead of who you want. Demographics of who votes Democrat and who votes Republican show that by a very large margin most African Americans believe Democrats to be the least worse option there. Plus as you also want to speak for Black women in the US, minorities make up the majority of abortions in spite of not being the majority. https://concernedwomen.org/abortion-demographics-who-has-an-abortion/. I can't speak for the majority of Black women obviously but what would say to those women about Republicans are looking after them?

Fine you want to reduce abortions through letting women actually afford the children? I am sure you will find many allies on the left. Lets start by ensuring that giving birth does not ever cost thousands as starting off in crazy debt just for giving birth to the child seems like a terrible idea. Lets increase sex education in schools so that teenagers are aware of birth control options. Lets ensure that jobs give adequate maternity/paternity leave so that people can take care of their newborns. Then once you have fixed all that and no women need an abortion for financial reasons we can talk Roe vs Wade. You see how removing access to abortions before ensuring those women don't need them is worse right?

Stare Decisis is not dead and gone. Talk about a complete overreaction. It was a draft opinion from one SC judge, draft being the key word.

Even RBG, a judge who was all but worshiped by the Democrats, disagreed with the initial ruling

If any of you really cared about the core of the issue you'd be talking about it in a legal sense, instead this thread is full of nonsense that has little to do with the legalities of it all. The outcome with be decided based on legal standards and not social standards, so all the shouting about "hating women" and "controlling women" is worthless.

that's versus at least 10 times as many guns per person in the US

you need a good reason to own the gun as being involved in hunting or a club etc

it took you 6 weeks to get said weapon with an actual proper background check

The people who have guns are more likely to have multiple, but less one offs because its not for home protection etc

So you can see the difference between here and schateside already, where you can buy much more than a shotgun in some places on the same day, in a walmart, **** all background checks

You are of course entitled to your opinion. For me, it is an overreaction to a draft document, especially when the abandonment of Stare Decisis is brought into the discussion. Moreover, looking at the reasoning in the draft document it looks very very flimsy and that's being overly kind. I just can't see how that would have got past the other judges. Roe and Casey may very well have been a "bad" decision constitutionally but you don't replace bad law with more bad law.

New legislation is always being drafted and can often find itself in front of the SC, which is how this whole debacle started.

Yet our history of mass shootings is very very low ..must be some reason for that ?

Lack of a politicised gun culture glorifying " stopping power " as you put it .

Many people hunt for sport in Ireland whether you're for or against it .

Nobody ( unless organised crime) here encouraging people to carry guns to shoot other people .