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.
Despite all the stuff about letting states decide, nothing in the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe suggests any limits on the ability of Congress to ban abortion nationwide...
Okay, so help me understand because I really really don't understand what the GOP goals are here. They want to allow states to make contraception illegal? So the South will likely be first and they will say no contraception is legal in these states, thus making every sexual act between fertile women and men potentially result in the birth of a child. If these women and men are going to start procreating like bunnies in these states, are the states going to help pay for that? Or is that the goal, to keep women home and pregnant? What is it that the GOP wants now that they own the Supreme Court for the next forty years?
In conservative states, the great majority of people already believe in traditional sex roles. The husband is the breadwinner and head of the household. The wife is the child bearer, nurturer and homemaker.
Liberal states will continue to allow access to abortion even up to a late stage.
So, this is not going to change things all that much.
The pendulum never stops swinging. When it goes too far one way, it always swings back hard the other.
The next time, let's hope women's rights to autonomy in her healthcare choices comes in the form of an Amendment.
I am fine with the ruling sending it back to the states. But let us not kid ourselves. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This is no different.
My guess is this will hurt the GOP in November, more than they realize now. And Biden will likely pack the court early next year. What does that mean? There will be a race for 60 votes in the senate. Say the red wave happens and pushes them over 60. The GOP can pass just about whatever it wants. Hard for a packed SCOTUS to stop that.
The new leftist SCOTUS will not only rule in abortion but go after guns and anything else the GOP holds dear. This is gloves off for both sides.
There will be a roller coaster of laws being struck down and approved by the right then left then right etc ever expanding in size SCOTUS. Until our country goes completely off the rails.
1- Your state, based on the people you elect, can protect those rights.
2- Roe was bad law.
3- Why don’t we wait to see what Thomas actually said, not someone’s spin.
No one is getting rid of contraceptives. If nothing else, “evil” Republicans don’t want more brown babies, remember?
On page 119 of the opinion, see Thomas' concurring opinion where he goes further, stating:
"For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell."
The amount of so called Christians that I've seen on social media upset about this is ridiculous. If you're not religious and you're pro choice I get it. But not sure how anybody can call themselves a Christian and be pro choice because if you're a Christian you should be living a life as close to what Jesus would be doing and I can promise you he'd never be pro choice.
Lastly, here's a little piece of advice. If you're a Christian you know you hope to meet God one day and when that happens and God asks you why you were pro choice. You might want to find a better response than "My body my choice" as to why you supported abortion. Because at the end of the day in the eyes of God. The only difference between babies killed inside the mother & kids killed in a school shooting is one had a chance to live some years outside the womb. They are both in Heaven.
Tell me, how many of your sins are forgiven? Which ones are not ? This is a country based on freedom. Did God not impart free will? The God I know has compassion. He forgives all sins to include the most horrific child abuse if the person repents. On Jeff Dahmer’s last interview he said Jesus saved him. So maybe he’s in heaven. I stand with my convictions. We have a right to choose, let God deal with the sinner. You are going to take her rights away, but not the right to own a gun that kills. So which is it ? Abort - a sin - child abuse of an unwanted child - not a sin ?? Check back in a few years and see the statistics on these innocent children.
Unintended pregnancy demonstrates predictive value as one of the earliest identifiable risk-factors for child maltreatment. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26070372/
The United States has one of the worst records among industrialized nations – losing on average 5 children every day to child abuse and neglect.
In 2019 alone, state agencies found over 656,000 victims of child maltreatment, but that only tells part of the story.1
No it isn't. By restoring this to the states it gives everyone the right to vote on it. Making it a federal right has that decision taken away by a bunch of unelected judges.
You really believe that some of the states care what their voters want? And it would be ok for voters in one state to say we dont support abortion even if this pregnancy is going to kill the woman? Women are worthless anyway, cause thats what some states may be saying.
Okay, so help me understand because I really really don't understand what the GOP goals are here. They want to allow states to make contraception illegal? So the South will likely be first and they will say no contraception is legal in these states, thus making every sexual act between fertile women and men potentially result in the birth of a child. If these women and men are going to start procreating like bunnies in these states, are the states going to help pay for that? Or is that the goal, to keep women home and pregnant? What is it that the GOP wants now that they own the Supreme Court for the next forty years?
more inanity.
Let's start with the "own SCOTUS for 40 years". Thomas & Alito won't even be alive in 40 years. The youngest, ACB, would be 90 in 40 years.
as to contraceptives:
Quote:
But in the fine print of their measure, those Republicans revealed that their ambition wasn’t only to target a familiar abortion foe. They were going after specific forms of birth control as well, notably, emergency contraceptives, often sold under the brand name Plan B, and intrauterine devices, known as IUDs. GOP lawmakers tried to stop Missouri’s Medicaid agency from paying for those forms of contraception.
Missouri state Sen. Paul Wieland, one of the Republicans who led that effort, explained his position this way: “The bottom line is there is only one time something definitively happens and that’s the moment of conception. Once that happens, anything that happens should not be state funded.”
1- Your state, based on the people you elect, can protect those rights. And, by the way, expand those rights without having to worry about dealing with mean red state elected officials. You always have to option of moving to a more enlightened state, if you live in a red state.
As it should be. I like a country with diverse cultures and the local political representation to protect that. One of the main reasons we have these things called states. I don't know what the left thinks states are all about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1
3- Why don’t we wait to see what Thomas actually said, not someone’s spin.
Rolling Stone ... FFS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1
No one is getting rid of contraceptives. If nothing else, “evil” Republicans don’t want more brown babies, remember?
Given that Republicans are all greedy plutocrats, the left should give us the benefit of the doubt for having done the financials on this one. It's so much more cost effective to stop the conception of a brown baby than it is to let him grow up, warehouse him in the penal system for a few years and then hire cops to finally kill him in cold blood. We aren't dumb. If environmental laws would allow it we'd be chemtrailing spermicidal foam over Baltimore and Chicago. Pro bono. Free. Gratis.
This is a great example of the level of blindness and stupidity on this court. It is NOT enshrined in the constitution so it’s not a “protection” nor right.
It's very instructive that the only objections people can come up with regarding the USSC decision, is to object to things the Court didn't even say or mean.
Did somebody mention a "level of blindness and stupidity"? There certainly is one being displayed here... but not by the Supreme Court.
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.
