US Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade

Some may very well change their vote after reviewing the case law and constitution further. It's not official until the judgement is released. Now they are in a damned if they do, damned if they don't scenario. That's one of the reasons leaks like this are so harmful as it takes something that is clearly still being deliberated and causes a complete mess.

It's yet another example of the hyper partisan toxicity that has taken root in American politics.

There's as much chance that it was leaked by the other side to apply pressure to change votes. It works both way really. Until the investigation is complete is pure speculation though.

I remember plenty of Democrats being pretty pissed off that she didn't retire while the Democrats could replace her. A pretty large black mark against her reputation in their books already.

There really IS a fair amount of spin in my post, and unless you’ve landed on the planet in the last five minutes, you’ll know that politics is all about spin. I was picking up on a point Overheal made -

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.

The reason I picked up on it is because I was questioning why in Overheal’s opinion there would be any political backlash, presumably from people who vote Republican, because Republicans don’t want abortion in the first place, they care about protecting the life of the unborn. They care about plenty more too, obviously, but abortion just doesn’t register all that highly on their list of things they want from their elected representatives.

The reference to funding abortion providers though, that’s not spin, that’s fact, and I provided supporting evidence for my opinion. I don’t mind providing supporting evidence for your opinion either as it was only since 2019 PP claimed they were withdrawing from the federal funding program because the Trump administration introduced a rule that forbade referrals to doctors who can perform abortions -

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/health/planned-parenthood-title-x.html

’Twas all a bit fox and grapes by way of saying “You’re not getting funding for abortions”, “Yeah well we didn’t want it anyway”. While they lost out on $60m, they still had plenty in the kitty to spend €45m in 2020 on a campaign to support abortion rights candidates -

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/16/planned-parenthood-to-spend-45-million-in-2020-elections.html

They could have spent the $45m supporting families experiencing poverty and done like NARAL did in 2008 when they threw Hillary under the bus and hitched their wagon to Obama, as they perceived him to be the more viable candidate. That went down about as well as you can imagine -

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/politics/16campaign.html

And Obama was kind enough to return the favour -

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/obama-sends-support-to-abortion-rights-group-087238?_amp=true

It’s true that $600m is peanuts compared to the Trillions it would cost on an economic plan to support Americans, and Biden is willing to spend that kind of money, were it not for Democrats feeling a bit queasy about the cost -

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/25/democrats-trim-bidens-build-back-better-bill-in-a-race-to-make-deal.html

Finally, I don’t mind that you want to change the subject, but I think it’s only fair to remind you that you initially began your post by reminding me that what we’re talking about here is the repeal of Roe v Wade, and my post in response to Overheal suggesting that Republicans would be concerned about a backlash, questioning why would Republicans be concerned about a backlash when one possible outcome of the decision is bound to prove popular with people who vote for Republican candidates.

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

An accusation like that can be levelled at anyone, I’m not sure why you picked my post to do it as I wasn’t attempting to speak for anyone but myself. I do know however, and I have pointed out with supporting evidence, that abortion just doesn’t register all that highly on women’s priority lists in the US. Their priorities are being able to provide for themselves and their families and receiving support to be able to do that. You’d know this too if you were listening to what women in the US have been saying for at least the last two centuries, but here’s a more up to date version -

https://iwpr.org/media/in-the-lead/what-women-want-iwpr-national-survey-details-priorities-for-the-new-administration/

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.

Nah, I don’t think that’s right at all. It’s not a really weird sentence though, it’s just your deliberate attempt to play dumb and present what I said in a way which you’re fully aware it wasn’t intended. I don’t think Republicans are weird either, they’re really easy to understand once you understand their beliefs which inform their world view -

Elizabeth, 27, also changed her mind about the president over the course of his four years in office. She's a Mexican-American voter from Laredo, one of Texas's majority-Latino border cities in which Trump over-performed with voters this year. She didn't vote in 2016, and initially wasn't convinced by Trump.

But when it came to casting her vote, she felt the Republican party best reflected her socially conservative, Catholic beliefs - particularly on abortion.

Trump recently nominated anti-abortion judge Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court, and said it was "certainly possible" they could revisit Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court case that legalised abortion nationwide in 1973.

"My family were all Democrats, it was a huge line of Democrats in my family - but this time I did see a difference," Elizabeth says. "A lot of presidents make promises but they never keep them, including [former President Barack] Obama. With Trump, when he came into office he came in promising, and at first I was like, 'oh yeah more empty promises' - but then I started seeing the results… I do love that he's pro-life and pro-God, and for me that's very important."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54972389.amp

Trump understood what drives people to vote Republican, and he exploited it to the nth degree. It didn’t matter that he didn’t believe half the shyte that was coming out of his mouth. What mattered is what the people who voted for him believe. Democrats for the most part are still stuck on trying to convince people to believe what they believe, instead of listening to what people actually DO believe, and delivering on what they actually want. Biden is something of an anomaly in that regard. He knows nobody wants a smartass -

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/22/joe-biden-draws-criticism-americans-who-back-trump-aint-black

Sorry I thought you were saying most Republicans don't care about abortion laws. No one is saying they don't but it could cause Democrats to come out in bigger numbers.

The issue with the survey is that most women wouldn't see abortion as an issue in February. Go with the same survey in Ireland and fun control won't pop up at all. Bring in 2nd amendment style rights and then everyone will be against it. Why would they want to prioritise what they have already? I mean what would they want Biden to do? Roe vs Wade is already there so there was not much for Biden to do at the time. It is like if Leopards started eating peoples faces. Suddenly everyone would have that as a large priority but no one mentioned it in the survey.

I picked you because you went with the middle class women are talking for everyone bull. I showed that a large number of abortions are for minorities and women on the poverty line. You don't think those people care at least a little bit?

Quote was probably a lie. All day gone by, no link. But it's o.k., shite stirrers like yerself love this stuff rather than actually engage in discussion.

Talk about your 'absolute lamps'

Of course, you're wrong, but anti-choice has always been economical with the truth. Educate yourself, woujda? Here's an article in small words, might help you: https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a26042120/new-york-abortion-facts-explained/

Bascailly, the RHA in NY means women their can still get abortions even if Roe V. Wade is repealed. NY State pols being prescient -and hey, it's up to the States now, right? Don't like it? Don't have an abortion.

Exact laws in Republican states will be of importance. Will exceptions for rape be allowed and will anything be needed to prove it outside of the word of the attacked women? Remember the X case in Ireland only started because the family wanted to keep DNA to prosecute the attacker. The obvious solution for women in this situation or just unsure on how the law works will be to not report sexual assault unfortunately.

It's a FACT that full term abortions are legal. Secondly your dodgy link scared my antivirus and thirdly I know overturning Roe won't end abortions in NY.

You don't have to tell me, tell the leftists losing their absolute **** because they think they won't be able to murder babies any longer.

All the end of Roe does is kick it back to individual states. Which is a far more democratic and constitutional process.

In the year prior to Roe, 39 women died from 'illegal' abortions.

In the year after Roe, 24 women died from legal abortions.

Not a massive difference and probably within natural fluctuations. The idea that hundreds of women were dying was nonsense.