Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... In the Mississippi case (economic correlation) being brought before the Supreme Court, Lynn Fitch, presented her brief:
"She wrote that policies like paid family leave, child care, and greater work flexibility have allowed women to have “a full family life and a successful career,” something there was little support for in 1973. Fitch further argued that linking abortion policy to economic advancement constituted a “stunted debate on how we support women,” and encouraged the court to let states make their own decisions about abortion rights by overturning Roe." The US Supreme Court is considering the economic impact of abortion
Then the article continues with the argument against Fitch's brief --- but on a national level, in time, the country may pay for our sins ... time will tell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
The vast majority of women who get abortions, ie the 49% that live below the Federal poverty level, and the additional 25% that live between 100% and 200% of the Federal poverty level, typically don't have jobs that provide paid family leave, child care, or work flexibility.
It is also the majority of women who are poor that are having replacement level births, as well.
I'd rather not live under dictatorship; democracy is best served through the people who vote to have what the need locally. Rather that than some one thousands of miles away putting undo burden on funds that would better serve the community in other areas like schools, parks etc ...
Oh well. Women were willing to compromise on abortion and go along with reasonable restrictions and even stupid restrictions the states dreamed up to make abortion more difficult.
No more. The so called anything but pro-life crowd has overplayed their hand starting with Texas and their unconstitutional bounty hunting scheme.
Women are done. If the Supremes dont uphold women's civil rights, women will turn to the feds to stop the states from violating their rights.
According to the article:
"Caitlin Myers, an economics professor at Middlebury College who also signed onto the brief, wrote in a Washington Post op-Ed that economists have refrained from weighing in on the issue of abortion during the last two major Supreme Court cases, but decided to do so in this case because data indicates there is “absolutely a causal link between abortion access and women’s lives.”" (emphasis is mine)
What they may not consider is the slow rate of population growth and its economic impact. imo, that we will have to learn the effects the hard way ... I've been following the population decline for awhile now and I thought there would be the day that both the laws on abortion and immigration would be revisited. Russia is facing extinction sometime in the future and they redid their abortion laws; it made sense to me that the u.s. and Europe might do the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
No one is revisiting abortion laws because of a slow rate of population growth.
MS is the most ignorant state in the country. Texas is equally stupid and on top of it crazy. They have a guv who says women don't need exceptions for rape because he is going to get rid of rape in TX.
If you think these bozos are even capable of designing a plan to increase population growth, I have a bridge to sell you......real cheap.
MS can't take care of the people they already have and Texas which likes to think of itself as energy central cant even keep their power grid up.
I think the low population levels is the very reason we are looking at this again after 30 years. They will look at it again too in another 30 if the trend continues ... (the country needs more taxpayers)
Interesting thing about Texas ... It is a Republican run State with Democratic run cities. And people from NY and Calif just keep coming in, in droves.
I'd rather not live under dictatorship; democracy is best served through the people who vote to have what the need locally. Rather that than some one thousands of miles away putting undo burden on funds that would better serve the community in other areas like schools, parks etc ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
Oh well. Women were willing to compromise on abortion and go along with reasonable restrictions and even stupid restrictions the states dreamed up to make abortion more difficult.
No more. The so called anything but pro-life crowd has overplayed their hand starting with Texas and their unconstitutional bounty hunting scheme.
Women are done. If the Supremes dont uphold women's civil rights, women will turn to the feds to stop the states from violating their rights.
Not all women see it the way you do you know that right? That alone means that it should be in the hands of the citizens, not its dictators.
You have said it's a states' rights issue. I'm asking why you believe it's a states' right issue when you are stating the unborn fetus is a separate life. The two things are mutually exclusive.
If you believe its a separate life, why are you willing to give 50 states different rights to restrict it's life?
Explain YOUR position. It makes no logical sense. But, I will give you that was a masterful attempt at deflection per usual.
She cannot rationally explain her position primarily because it's based on loopy libertaryan circular reasoning.
It would be easier to dismiss as yet another lame-brained libertaryan scheme, if the SCOTUS was not all about shirking its responsibilities to protect constitutional rights.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor indicates how the SCOTUS apparently seems not only willing, but able, to sacrifice its own legitimacy.
SOTOMAYOR, J., Opinion
This is a brazen challenge to our federal structure. It echoes the philosophy of John C. Calhoun, a virulent defender of the slaveholding South who insisted that States had the right to “veto” or “nullif[y]” any federal law with which they disagreed. ...
The Nation fought a Civil War over that proposition, but Calhoun’s theories were not extinguished. They experienced a revival in the post-war South, and the violence that ensued led Congress to enact Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983. “Proponents of the legislation noted that state courts were being used to harass and injure individuals, either because the state courts were powerless to stop deprivations or were in league with those who were bent upon abrogation of federally protected rights.”
I think the low population levels is the very reason we are looking at this again after 30 years. They will look at it again too in another 30 if the trend continues ... (the country needs more taxpayers)
Interesting thing about Texas ... It is a Republican run State with Democratic run cities. And people from NY and Calif just keep coming in, in droves.
Exactly who do you think is behind relooking at abortion because of low population levels?
Meh......people move to TX; almost as many moved out of TX last year. So what.
I think the low population levels is the very reason we are looking at this again after 30 years. They will look at it again too in another 30 if the trend continues ... (the country needs more taxpayers)
Interesting thing about Texas ... It is a Republican run State with Democratic run cities. And people from NY and Calif just keep coming in, in droves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
Exactly who do you think is behind relooking at abortion because of low population levels?
Meh......people move to TX; almost as many moved out of TX last year. So what.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
Exactly who do you think is behind relooking at abortion because of low population levels?
The same people looking into immigration laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
Meh......people move to TX; almost as many moved out of TX last year. So what.
She cannot rationally explain her position primarily because it's based on loopy libertaryan circular reasoning.
It would be easier to dismiss as yet another lame-brained libertaryan scheme, if the SCOTUS was not all about shirking its responsibilities to protect constitutional rights.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor indicates how the SCOTUS apparently seems not only willing, but able, to sacrifice its own legitimacy.
SOTOMAYOR, J., Opinion
This is a brazen challenge to our federal structure. It echoes the philosophy of John C. Calhoun, a virulent defender of the slaveholding South who insisted that States had the right to “veto” or “nullif[y]” any federal law with which they disagreed. ...
The Nation fought a Civil War over that proposition, but Calhoun’s theories were not extinguished. They experienced a revival in the post-war South, and the violence that ensued led Congress to enact Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983. “Proponents of the legislation noted that state courts were being used to harass and injure individuals, either because the state courts were powerless to stop deprivations or were in league with those who were bent upon abrogation of federally protected rights.”
Agreed. I noted yesterday that "states' rights" has always been the rallying cry of racists and misogynists hellbent on violating people's civil rights. The alleged pro-lifers are no different imo.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
