Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

Not sure of the technicalities but they could leave the Texas approach of the civil suit by their neighours in place (which this SC didn't block).

Problem is that even if they dont actively control that so many women are too poor to make it to states where it might be legal (especially when surrounded by other red states).

Obviously, that is ignoring the high likelihood of an attempt for a national ban on abortion.

It was always possible but for the most part a decent proportion ruled with some level of ethics and on the case in front of them (of course they still had their own biases). There wasnt the exact same split like we're seeing here with every vote.

It is why that despite how many more GOP nominated justices over the last few decades vs those nominated by Dems that it has taken until this latest batch to turn the country so much. What repeatedly happened was that the GOP would nominate someone they thought was a hard liner and they'd end up ruling on the cases on their merits so to combat it right wing groups poured loads of cash to vet and indoctrinate judges for years before openings came up to be certain they'd do what they wanted (along with questionable disappearance of the debts of certain judges)

Nowhere does the constitution mention the right to conceal carry a gun yet the same SC judges a few days ago had no problem finding against the laws that restricted this.

There is absolutely no consistency with their logic

The SC, including the man in question that you are quoted, are proven to twist truth to suit their ideology.

'Personal religious observance' is not doing it in the most public place on the field - on the halfway line. 

Again, the Conservative hypocrisy is caught in full view where now a teacher can lead a class in prayer in a public secular school while not being able to mention that they are gay to the same students.

Again, that’s your own interpretation of what actually happened, based upon the narrative you wish to promote as being what actually happened. It’s not what actually happened though. In the most basic terms - the school over-reached, and got told nope, can’t do that.

Utter nonsense. Unlike those who are cheering this decision by the SC, I am treating each person as a human being and not pushing my opinions on anyone's unique situations. I am calling for each individual to be given their right to choose what suits their life, that myself nor 'big-government' mostly full of old white men should be telling them what to do with their bodies.

And again, when your original point is shown to be nonsense, that women do actually understand plenty about women and babies, you defer to the old “stale, pale and male” trope, which ignores the reality of millions of women who are pro-life, who have been protesting in favour of protecting life for decades, who don’t want abortion legislated for.

Nobody is telling anyone what they can and can’t do with their own bodies, it’s the law which determines the freedoms and limitations on what anyone can or cannot do with their own bodies, and what freedoms and limitations anyone has with anyone else’s body either, such as abortion services providers who receive Federal and State funding, or bodies like the FDA who will try and find a way to challenge legislation which prohibits the procurement of abortion pills by telesales, etc.

No individuals are being deprived of the right to choose what suits their life, within the context of laws which apply in those circumstances. Turns out that the right to liberty and privacy doesn’t infer a right to abortion after all.

It could have been addressed long before now with Democrats having been in power since Bill Clinton shot his load on Monica Lewinsky’s dress (he was obviously familiar with the pull-out method but for the love of God, on her dress?), and then there was Obama, and his Obamadon’tcare plan, and then there was Biden, and he’s pale, can’t call him stale as he’s fairly spritely for his age, but he is male, and between them, and all the other pale, stale, and wealthy, lest we forget, types, and those who have decades of experience in law - they didn’t think to put abortion on a more solid foundation than relying on it being inferred by the 14th Amendment. It’s not Government is telling anyone what to do, it’s not even the Courts, they only interpret existing law, and in Roe v Wade, the SC recognised the States interest in protecting the potential of human life -

What did the 14th amendment have to do with Roe v. Wade? 

Writing for the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, Justice Harry Blackmun said that the court held a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected under the 14th Amendment. However, while the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a woman's right to choose, it also acknowledged the state's interest in protecting the "potential of human life."

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/what-is-the-14th-amendment-and-how-is-it-connected-to-abortion-rights-roe-v-wade-2/2865134/?amp

You don’t say anything about that though. Is that because you prefer to imagine it’s a limitation which doesn’t exist? Similarly, once they had achieved their aims, the lawyers representing Roe wanted to pretend she didn’t exist either -

Publicly, the pro-choice movement more or less shrugged. McCorvey's former lawyer, Sarah Weddington, said, "All Jane Roe ever did was sign a one-page legal affidavit." But Charlotte Taft, the women's-rights advocate, regrets that the pro-choice camp did not make McCorvey feel more needed or more special. And, she says, evangelical religion provided Norma with something the pro-choice movement could not: the comfort of absolute truth. "She got to know she is right" says Taft.

https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/2013/2/the-accidental-activist

Instead of taking your “my hands are clean, my conscience is clear” approach to addressing the main causes of socioeconomic deprivation by means of having the Federal and State taxes provide funding for abortion providers operating in socioeconomically deprived areas in the US, I mean, it’s one way of trying to eliminate a whole underclass of people living in poverty, do you think a better strategy might be to provide funding for supports and services which will enable and encourage socioeconomic equality, rather than having women forced into a position where they are faced with no other choice but to have an abortion? That’s not choice. That’s not choosing what they want to do with their own bodies. It’s promoting abortion, and attempting to sell it as healthcare.

You need people to be stupid enough to buy into it. It’s already a no-brainier for anyone who wants an easy way to avoid any social responsibility they have towards other people in society - wash your hands of it and pretend you’re arguing for anyone to be given the freedom to do what they want with their own bodies, and if it weren’t for 'big-government' mostly full of old white men, they would be too. But you treat everyone as individual human beings… of course you do, looks like it and all 😒

Well to be fair that's a little disingenuous, the 2nd amendment could very fairly and reasonably be understood to be a right to conceal carry a gun. Of course there could be arguments around the edges like are fully automatic guns aren't covered or the affect of the prefatory clause but it's not comparable to Roe.

Roe is based on the concept that "no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property save in due process of law" which is much harder to see where the right to abortion comes from in that. Clearly this was a right to have a fair trial and all of the general rights a process which was customary in a common law jurisdiction.

So there is argument about whether it is only applicable to a well-regulated militia (hence my mention of the prefatory clause) but the SC said that its says the right of the "people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" not the "right of the militias..."

But I agree, it is ridiculous and should be repealed but it's not the job of the SC to decide that this right is no longer applicable and should be removed.

Christian groups celebrated like it was the next coming of Christ when Row v Wade was overturned, yet here is Mormon telling his mom he got a stripper pregnant and she's like '' TELL HER TO GET AND ABORTION!!!!'' It's funny how their feelings change when it's her precious son involved.

The court's view on the interpretation of the constitution does seem very inconsistent though, as pointed out in the dissenting opinion.

Firstly, the majority of the Supreme Court essentially held that a right to abortion was unknown before the mid 20th century, and this greatly informed their decision that the rights conferred by Roe v Wade were, in essence, an overreach. However, the majority also stressed with great emphasis that their decision absolutely did not affect the constitutional rights pertaining to other things like access to contraception -- even if this concept (and the others they mention) were also not known rights until the mid 20th century.

So, essentially, they came to a somewhat confusing conclusion that the lack of a historical basis for the constitutional right conferred by Roe was a significant reason to overturn it -- but in the same breath they also say confidently that this view does not affect other things like contraception or interracial marriage. A consistent approach would mean saying that the Court's decision means that essentially all constitutional rights are insecure unless they have a requisite explicit trace of origin back to the 19th century.

The Court essentially seems to apply a different reasoning towards Roe because, as the dissenting judges plainly put it: they despise abortion, found an argument to frustrate it, but were expressly unwilling to apply that argument consistently across the strata of other rights.

Nah, it's just the usual small number of anti-choice posters posting the same drivel furiously and repeatedly.

Fine. Here's an article I've posted before talking about forced-birthing advocates like yourself who avail of abortion services, often at the places they picketed.

Actually, and imo unsurprisingly, the most recent demonstrations have featured violence *against the pro-choice* from the forced-birthers:

Lots of prior art for forced birthers resorting to violence including bombings, murders, vandalism, let alone the 'gauntlet' women were forced to run when visiting health clinics.