[report]Rov V Wade overturned[confirmed]

[o_e_l_e_o]

A patient under anesthesia doesn't feel pain either.

I mean, they absolutely do, we just give them drugs to mitigate that pain. A 20 week old fetus is physically incapable of feeling pain because the required neuronal structures have not yet developed.

I don't have to use any emotion when talking about abortion

Sure. No emotion. As you talk about poking brains with sticks, as if that is in any way whatsoever based in reality.

I'm hoping it will go out of style and revert back to "safe, legal, and rare."

And this ruling won't make abortion any rarer, just a whole lot more dangerous.

There is a right to keep guns in the U.S. I don't see a right for abortion anywhere in the constitution.

So anything which didn't exist in Philadelphia, 1787, shouldn't be protected?

Hard to find any legitimate constitutional scholar that can find abortion within the text of the constitution.

The 9th Amendment? The 14th Amendment? Or are we fine going after everything from contraception to interracial marriage now because these things aren't explicitly spelt out in the Constitution?

Seems to me the legal analysis of any document, by a prudent person (few of those folks left in the court system these days) would be from a textualist interpretation.

True textualism there - selectively pick the bits of the text which suit your agenda. Guess they've got plenty of practice with that after doing it with the Bible for so many years.

[1715034953]

1715034953

[1715034953]

1715034953

[1715034953]

1715034953

[1715034953]

1715034953

[1715034953]

1715034953

[Gyfts]

Sure. No emotion. As you talk about poking brains with sticks, as if that is in any way whatsoever based in reality.

poled with a stick?.?.? are you a time traveller from the Victorian age where you hear about the 'back room' abortions woman go to because they lack having a proper medical assistance so try to perform it themselves with a friend that found a random stick?..

i hope you do realise what modern abortions are compared to your Victorian views..
let me guess you think appendix surgery is done with pair of rusty scissors and a coat hanger too

i guarantee you, that no modern abortions performed by a doctor trained in abortions is done with a stick

Would forceps and suction devices make you feel better about this? Is that better structured in reality?

So anything which didn't exist in Philadelphia, 1787, shouldn't be protected?

You can make a constitutional amendment if you'd like. You have over two dozen of them.

The 9th Amendment? The 14th Amendment? Or are we fine going after everything from contraception to interracial marriage now because these things aren't explicitly spelt out in the Constitution?

You think interracial marriage isn't included in the constitution?

True textualism there - selectively pick the bits of the text which suit your agenda. Guess they've got plenty of practice with that after doing it with the Bible for so many years.

Where is abortion outlined in the constitution? Why are so many constitutional scholars in agreement that Roe was bad law?

And does this change the fact that the blue states will allow full access to abortion? You might worry about abortion rights when it's outlawed in blue states. It won't be.

[paxmao]

According to recent unconfirmed reports, including a reported draft opinion of the US Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned by the US Supreme Court.

If the above is correct, abortion will be regulated by the various states, and in most states, abortion will not be illegal in all circumstances.

It appears that the SCOTUS correctly recognizes that there is no basis to say that the "right to get an abortion" is enumerated in the Constitution, and as such, the ability to regulate abortion is reserved to the various states.

What do you think? Is there any basis in the US constitution to suggest that the right to an abortion is guaranteed in the Constitution? If true, is the above ruling consistent with the Constitution?

It is correct and quite surprising. The Christian conservative movement in the US is really strong and, in my view, little more civilised than other fundamentalists across the world. If they were Muslims, the females of Texas would be wearing a Burka.

Trump needs those votes - living on the conspiracy theorists, the Qanons of this world and the Oil lobby is not enough to win an election and he has not been able con consummate his last coup-d'etat. He had the luck of choosing three members of the SCOTUS and, as usual, had no filter nor any intent to govern with equanimity, and chose those who would deliver this political objective to him.

All that is just politics and usually would be just part of the great game, but this time is going to affect the most deprived sectors of the population, and, as I said before, it will tell the "haves" (have enough for a plane ticket to another state) and the "have nots" - have not other option than risking their lives in a dark alley getting a hanger inserted into their vaginas or live with a bad decision for the rest of their lives.

[TwitchySeal]

The 9th Amendment? The 14th Amendment? Or are we fine going after everything from contraception to interracial marriage now because these things aren't explicitly spelt out in the Constitution?

You think interracial marriage isn't included in the constitution?

No type of marriage is included in the constitution. 

[DooMAD]

This is a victory for the conservatives and religious right groups after about 50 years of legal war.

Turns out the ones that bleat the loudest about freedom are the first to deny freedom to others.  Not content unless they're oppressing someone.  Yet they somehow don't see the hypocrisy.  Claiming themselves the "land of the free" in one breath and then denying rights like a bunch of dogmatic fundamentalist extremists in the next.  Disgusting.

[o_e_l_e_o]

You can make a constitutional amendment if you'd like. You have over two dozen of them.

We already have the 9th and the 14th, which protect rights such as abortion (or at least, used to, until this religiously drive court allowed personal opinions to take priority over impartiality). It is nonsensical to suggest an individual amendment for every single specific right.

You think interracial marriage isn't included in the constitution?

You think it is? Show me where. This is why we needed rulings like Loving, which interestingly Thomas left out of his crosshairs despite being based on the exact same reasoning as Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. I wonder why?

Where is abortion outlined in the constitution?

As I said above, it is (or rather now, should be) protected by the 9th and 14th Amendments.

If you want to say that any right which did not exist in 18th century Philadelphia is not worth having, then go ahead. But at least be honest that you have no issue with stripping vast numbers of rights away from vast numbers of people.

If they were Muslims, the females of Texas would be wearing a Burka.

Don't forget the Supreme Court also ruled this week that public money can be handed to religious schools. What happened to separation of church and state? (Note that this ruling, the gun ruling I linked to on the last page, and the Roe ruling were all split in the exact same 6-3 way. Anyone else see a pattern emerging here?)

All that is just politics and usually would be just part of the great game, but this time is going to affect the most deprived sectors of the population, and, as I said before, it will tell the "haves" (have enough for a plane ticket to another state) and the "have nots" - have not other option than risking their lives in a dark alley getting a hanger inserted into their vaginas or live with a bad decision for the rest of their lives.

Working as intended. All the evidence from around the world shows that outlawing abortion doesn't stop abortion, and countries with restrictive abortion laws have similar rates of abortion to countries with legal abortion. The only thing that changes is the safety of those abortions. Republican senators will still be able to afford for their mistresses to get safe abortions, and they don't care in the slightest about poor people.

[PrimeNumber7]

Hard to find any legitimate constitutional scholar that can find abortion within the text of the constitution.

The 9th Amendment? The 14th Amendment? Or are we fine going after everything from contraception to interracial marriage now because these things aren't explicitly spelt out in the Constitution?

Interracial marriage is protected by the 14th and 15th amendments.

Further, courts, including the Supreme Court, only rule on actual controversies, and I am unaware of any serious attempts to make either contraception, nor interracial marriage illegal.

You can make a constitutional amendment if you'd like. You have over two dozen of them.

We already have the 9th and the 14th, which protect rights such as abortion (or at least, used to, until this religiously drive court allowed personal opinions to take priority over impartiality). It is nonsensical to suggest an individual amendment for every single specific right.

I am not aware of any arguments saying that Roe was correctly decided, the arguments that I have heard have been that the ability of states to regulate abortions is a bad thing.

Don't forget the Supreme Court also ruled this week that public money can be handed to religious schools. What happened to separation of church and state? (Note that this ruling, the gun ruling I linked to on the last page, and the Roe ruling were all split in the exact same 6-3 way. Anyone else see a pattern emerging here?)

PN - citation by oeleo - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carson_v._Makin (I copied the text, and lost the BB code)

The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot discriminate against religious schools when funding schools.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Interracial marriage is protected by the 14th and 15th amendments.

The 15th Amendment says nothing about marriage, and the 14th Amendment protects it in the exact same way it protected abortion. If your argument is that Roe should be thrown out on these grounds, then you are also arguing that Loving should be thrown out on the exact same grounds. Anything else is hypocrisy.

Further, courts, including the Supreme Court, only rule on actual controversies, and I am unaware of any serious attempts to make either contraception, nor interracial marriage illegal.

Yet. But Thomas was already explicitly clear in his statement that he has his eyes on Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell next.

I am not aware of any arguments saying that Roe was correctly decided, the arguments that I have heard have been that the ability of states to regulate abortions is a bad thing.

So every ruling by multiple different Supreme Courts made up of many different justices which confirmed Roe or based other rulings on Roe were all wrong? But now that this religiously driven and non-impartial court have decided to overturn it, they are ones who got it right? Confirmation bias much?

The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot discriminate against religious schools when funding schools.

Let's have the Satanic Temple open a school there and see just how quickly they get discriminated against.

[BADecker]

Interracial marriage is protected by the 14th and 15th amendments.

The 15th Amendment says nothing about marriage, and the 14th Amendment protects it in the exact same way it protected abortion. If your argument is that Roe should be thrown out on these grounds, then you are also arguing that Loving should be thrown out on the exact same grounds. Anything else is hypocrisy.

Further, courts, including the Supreme Court, only rule on actual controversies, and I am unaware of any serious attempts to make either contraception, nor interracial marriage illegal.

Yet. But Thomas was already explicitly clear in his statement that he has his eyes on Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell next.

I am not aware of any arguments saying that Roe was correctly decided, the arguments that I have heard have been that the ability of states to regulate abortions is a bad thing.

So every ruling by multiple different Supreme Courts made up of many different justices which confirmed Roe or based other rulings on Roe were all wrong? But now that this religiously driven and non-impartial court have decided to overturn it, they are ones who got it right? Confirmation bias much?

The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot discriminate against religious schools when funding schools.

Let's have the Satanic Temple open a school there and see just how quickly they get discriminated against.

While many of us interpret the Constitution and early laws to mean this or that, nobody really knows what was meant until he digs into the understanding of the definitions of the words used. And he has to understand them according to the way the words were used at the time of their writing.

For example, freedom of religion didn't mean freedom to have a Satan religion... back at the time the Bill of Rights was written. When judges make a legal decision, and someone doesn't like it, he needs to hold the judges accountable to the "statements of fact, and conclusions of law" whereby the judges made their decision. Judges can't simply make decisions up out of the air, like a king might in his kingdom.

However, anybody can do anything he wants and get away with it, if he is not held accountable by other people. Judges can be sued successfully, if done the right way.

[paxmao]

...

For example, freedom of religion didn't mean freedom to have a Satan religion...

It means exactly that. I despise much more Christian fundamentalists than the chaps of Satan's church. The extremists are actually the ones that deny other the right to think, live or act differently because one of the basis of their religion is precise to not respect others because anything that is not their way is by definition "a wrong way".

https://www.christianpost.com/news/christians-protest-satanic-temples-3-day-satancon-in-arizona.html

Kill the doctors, burn the witches, ban the gays...

You are a work of art - on the Russian Invasion of Ukraine thread you are defending the killing of Ukrainian civilians and here you are giving moral lessons.

[BADecker]

...

For example, freedom of religion didn't mean freedom to have a Satan religion...

It means exactly that. I despise much more Christian fundamentalists than the chaps of Satan's church. The extremists are actually the ones that deny other the right to think, live or act differently because one of the basis of their religion is precise to not respect others because anything that is not their way is by definition "a wrong way".

https://www.christianpost.com/news/christians-protest-satanic-temples-3-day-satancon-in-arizona.html

Kill the doctors, burn the witches, ban the gays...

You are a work of art - on the Russian Invasion of Ukraine thread you are defending the killing of Ukrainian civilians and here you are giving moral lessons.

You seem to be so full of war-mongering rage all the time. Doesn't it give you heartburn when you eat a meal?


As in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when civilians support their government, they are going to get blasted some of the time. Russia isn't trying to kill civilians in Ukraine. Some of the civilians living there are Russians! Accidents happen in police actions between nations.

Russia's military moves were/are a form of self defense. Reasons are:
1. Nobody likes NAZIs except NAZIs. And too many weak-minded Ukrainians are falling for their NAZI government just like weak-minded Germans fell for Hitler's Nazism. Russia is attempting to save Ukrainians from Nazism while protecting themselves from it, as well;
2. We all know the NATO reasons why Russia is acting as it is;
3. Then there are the at least 46 Wuhan-style research labs in the Ukraine, that Russia shut down. That's a good idea, because the labs were working viral warfare, right on Russia's borders. However, as in Wuhan, the viruses created could spread death around the world. So, Russia is actually protecting the people of the nations that are sanctioning them... Ukrainians, as well.

If these 3 things were never done in Ukraine, Russia would have "conquered" Ukraine through friendly trade as it has done for years since the USSR fall. And the Ukraine would have "conquered" Russia in the same way.

As it is, if Ukraine willingly got rid of Nazism today, and kicked the US out, Russia's policing activities would keep the Russian military in that country long enough to be sure that the Ukraine government wasn't lying.


As far as doctors go, they have misplaced their sacred trust. They allow their leaders to feed them BS-medicine that harms people rather than does them good... especially in the Covid vaxxes. If they won't find the truth in medicine, or at least stop being doctors, they should be prosecuted.

Is burning witches something that you want to do?

Gays should be banned, at least into their own fenced-off areas... something like nudist camps. We don't want our children turning to their corruption.


I haven't looked at every writing of the founding fathers of the US. But religion in all the writings I have seen meant God worship to them, and never Satan worship. I think many of us would be interested if you could reference a founding-father writing that showed that freedom of religion included Satanism, where it was literarily so written.

[o_e_l_e_o]

It means exactly that. I despise much more Christian fundamentalists than the chaps of Satan's church. The extremists are actually the ones that deny other the right to think, live or act differently because one of the basis of their religion is precise to not respect others because anything that is not their way is by definition "a wrong way".

No no no, you've got it all wrong. It's freedom of religion, provided the religion is Christianity, and one of the specific branches of Christianity that Republicans like. Otherwise fuck you.

In yet another 6-3 Supreme Court ruling yesterday, they have again overturned decades of precedent to state that it is fine for public officials to coerce others to pray. I'm absolutely certain they would have ruled the same way if a Muslim official whipped out a prayer rug and tried to lead the team in salah.

[paxmao]

It means exactly that. I despise much more Christian fundamentalists than the chaps of Satan's church. The extremists are actually the ones that deny other the right to think, live or act differently because one of the basis of their religion is precise to not respect others because anything that is not their way is by definition "a wrong way".

No no no, you've got it all wrong. It's freedom of religion, provided the religion is Christianity, and one of the specific branches of Christianity that Republicans like. Otherwise fuck you.

In yet another 6-3 Supreme Court ruling yesterday, they have again overturned decades of precedent to state that it is fine for public officials to coerce others to pray. I'm absolutely certain they would have ruled the same way if a Muslim official whipped out a prayer rug and tried to lead the team in salah.

The Trumpublicans consider this a victory, after many years of preparation, yet however I think the are miss-reading a large part of their supporting basis. True that there are many Christian fundamentalists in the ranks, but I hope that there is still some sense in the moderate Republicans to understand that, despite the hate that Democrats may inspire them, they are not choosing the next president, but how is the US going to be ruled and if there is going to be a Rule of Law or the dawning of a Dictatorship.

The US citizens have no experience of a dictatorship or of a subversion of the will of the people. They may not be aware of how real this can be and how easy is to excite the ignorant and the ignored, all the leftovers of  the system and the rejects from public schools and create a permanent regime change.

But anyway, the Trumpublicans got the plan B: Choosing the right "secretaries of state" that will simply not accept a Democrats victory no-matter-what. That is like the back-up plan... just in case. Trying to replicate the ridiculous argument that "the Vice President" may choose not to accept the victory of a candidates, now they will press in each state for the results not to be certified. Does anyone out there believe that the constitution or any law does actually give powers to individuals to ignore the results of an election? Yes. Him. You know who.

The US is dangerously close to making the constitution be toilet paper and becoming an Empire - except that Donald Grump is not even nearly as bright as was Julius Caesar.

[suchmoon]

I hope that there is still some sense in the moderate Republicans

I doubt it. It's the "moderates" that were and still are cheering the SC majority and everything that it entails. That's how Trump got elected despite being disliked as a person by a significant number of Republicans (evangelicals et al). I also don't see any particular aversion to a dictatorship, as long as it's the "right" one.

As for the abortion ruling...

"President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday," said Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., as she raised her hands to lead the crowd in Mendon, Ill., in applause.

She "misspoke" LOL. They aren't even trying anymore.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Well, that didn't take long: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/republicans-move-to-ban-abortion-nationwide

Wonder what happened to all the "Abortion is an issue for the states" nonsense which was being parroted just a few months ago? This was the very obvious next step. Party of small government? Party of individual liberty? Don't make me laugh.

Republicans leave the decision to the states. Unless a state protects abortion rights. In which case Republicans ban it for them.

[BADecker]

The main abortion point is this. Nobody knows for a fact when the new life should/can be considered to be a living being... its own human being. All of it is guesses or guestimations.

Let's guess on the side of safety, like all conceptions are new people. Abortion might be murder, even if it isn't known to be murder. Murder by guessing? That's the way it might be. Let's be safe and for sure do no murder. Do no abortion.

Do you see how abortion is becoming euthanization? There are States that allow abortion after birth... at least one of them up to a week after. What next? A year after? Ten years after? Anybody over 50-y-o? Legalized 'jump a person, drag him into an alley, and kill him'?

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

Absolutely none of that is true.

[BADecker]

-snip-

Absolutely none of that is true.

To be expected, since you barely acknowledge any truth at all.