Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (1 Viewer)

[LovesMusic7360]

Not long ago Kari Lake proclaimed Arizona's abortion law was a great law and wanted it the law of the state.

Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.

As I have been saying since 2022, the overwhelming vast majority of women aren't going to vote for the man who proudly boasts that he got rid of Roe V. Wade. Nor are those women going to vote for a forced birther politician.

Turns out, republican belief in "pro life" was all just lies to get votes. Who is surprised? I sure am not.

How many forced birthers will do the same about face?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ka ... r-BB1ltx3I.

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake is actively lobbying state lawmakers to overturn a 160-year-old law she once supported that bans abortion in almost all cases, a source with knowledge of her efforts told CNN.

 

[superchuck500]

How wouldn't it be? It's making law for everyone based on your personal religious beliefs. We don't do that in a Republic. If you like that sort of thing move to Qatar.

I think there’s a fine distinction here that has to be made - and I think Farb is more right than wrong about this. The establishment clause prohibits official support of religion in the form of law, policy or official practice. But the Court has said numerous times that the establishment clause and the principles that drive it do not compel the complete expulsion of religion or religious viewpoint from the governing process. The viewpoints of the individuals involved are informed by all sorts of experiences, educations, and beliefs including religious and moral views - the religious or moral elements of those viewpoints don’t have to be shut out. That’s simply a bridge too far.

One lawmaker or judge may oppose the death penalty because they believe it to be inequitable and based on flawed process while another may oppose it on moral or religious grounds. Both are equally valid in the American system.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Well at least the Senate has protected same-sex and interracial marriage. Damn shame in today's times we have to do this...

Senate passes bill to protect same-sex and interracial marriage in landmark vote | CNN Politics

The Senate on Tuesday passed legislation to protect same-sex and interracial marriage, called the Respect for Marriage Act, in a landmark bipartisan vote.

www.cnn.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

In the wake of the US supreme court’s overturning of Roe v Wade, Google pledged fresh policies to protect people’s abortion-related data.

But new research has shown the way our location and other personal data is stored remains largely unchanged, raising fears that intimate details of a person’s abortion search could be used to penalize them.

Google responds to tens of thousands of requests each year from law enforcement agencies seeking access to the vast troves of data collected on its users.

In one six-month period in 2021, the most recent data publicly available, Google received nearly 47,000 law enforcement requests, affecting more than 100,000 accounts, and responded with some amount of data to 80% of them.

The Dobbs decision sparked concerns that such data could be used to prosecute people seeking abortions in states where it is banned – for instance, if they searched for or traveled to an abortion clinic…….

Googling abortion? Your details aren’t as private as you think

Exclusive: a study shows the company has a long way to go in upholding its pledge to protect users

www.theguardian.com

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

I have no doubt if this is passed, If Desantis or Trump win the white house, they will try some executve order to bypass it and the R's in the Supreme Court will back it..

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

I think there’s a fine distinction here that has to be made - and I think Farb is more right than wrong about this. The establishment clause prohibits official support of religion in the form of law, policy or official practice. But the Court has said numerous times that the establishment clause and the principles that drive it do not compel the complete expulsion of religion or religious viewpoint from the governing process. The viewpoints of the individuals involved are informed by all sorts of experiences, educations, and beliefs including religious and moral views - the religious or moral elements of those viewpoints don’t have to be shut out. That’s simply a bridge too far.

One lawmaker or judge may oppose the death penalty because they believe it to be inequitable and based on flawed process while another may oppose it on moral or religious grounds. Both are equally valid in the American system.

What's a bridge too far is the extinction of a woman's right to an abortion based on a religious belief. No deal. And the former VP made it perfectly clear that that is where he's coming from.

Abortion is a fact of life. Beliefs are just and only beliefs.

 

[Farb]

How wouldn't it be? It's making law for everyone based on your personal religious beliefs. We don't do that in a Republic. If you like that sort of thing move to Qatar.

Every single person votes based on their moral values. Your morals are based on what the TV said and mine is based on my faith. That is how things works in a democracy. If you don't like that sort of thing move to China.

 

[Farb]

About the same amount of proof as you have of voter fraud. Is an ID so magical that no one would challenge it? People challenge signatures now. Anyway, you know I'm right.

Do I though? If it is so unimportant, why not require it, like we do when you choose to buy a six pack?

 

[Farb]

Well at least the Senate has protected same-sex and interracial marriage. Damn shame in today's times we have to do this...

Senate passes bill to protect same-sex and interracial marriage in landmark vote | CNN Politics

The Senate on Tuesday passed legislation to protect same-sex and interracial marriage, called the Respect for Marriage Act, in a landmark bipartisan vote.

www.cnn.com

Why do the Ds lump interracial and same-sex marriage together? And, what/who exactly where they protecting it from?

This will be in the SC, once a certain baker (care to bet if it is the same one or not?) refuses to bake a cake for same sex marriage.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Every single person votes based on their moral values. Your morals are based on what the TV said and mine is based on my faith. That is how things works in a democracy. If you don't like that sort of thing move to China.

So there's either TV or religious beliefs? How ridiculous.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Why do the Ds lump interracial and same-sex marriage together? And, what/who exactly where they protecting it from?

This will be in the SC, once a certain baker (care to bet if it is the same one or not?) refuses to bake a cake for same sex marriage.

I would say it's because both are innate characteristics of a person, and we don't allow legal discrimination against people based on innate characteristics in this country.

 

[coldseat]

Why do the Ds lump interracial and same-sex marriage together?

It wasn't D's that did that, it was the SC. Read up on substantive due process.

And, what/who exactly where they protecting it from?

States that have laws on the books that would outlaw or not recognize married same sex relationships if Obergefell were overturned by the right wing SC. States like the one you live in.

This will be in the SC, once a certain baker (care to bet if it is the same one or not?) refuses to bake a cake for same sex marriage.

Not the same law. The baker actually has more protections in that circumstance due to this law than gay engaged couples that just wants to buy a cake.

 

[Farb]

So there's either TV or religious beliefs? How ridiculous.

In your world, yes, that is what you are describing.

In the real world, people vote based on a long list of personal, learned and observed experiences. You just happen to hate anything religious. Can't help you with that except to pray for you.

 

[Farb]

I would say it's because both are innate characteristics of a person, and we don't allow legal discrimination against people based on innate characteristics in this country.

How is inter racial marriage an innate characteristic? I think you got your 'key words talking points' mixed up again. So again, why do you link these two?

Can you tell me what group in politics wants to outlaw interracial marriages?

 

[Farb]

It wasn't D's that did that, it was the SC. Read up on substantive due process.



States that have laws on the books that would outlaw or not recognize married same sex relationships if Obergefell were overturned by the right wing SC. States like the one you live in.



Not the same law. The baker actually has more protections in that circumstance due to this law than gay engaged couples that just wants to buy a cake.

So Obergefell would overturn interracial marriages as well? The Supreme court proposes legislation to the senate?

The real question you are flailing around about is whether the state should define marriage or if the federal government?

Why do you think the federal government has the right to define marriage but not the state government?

And just be clear. I am not against gay marriage. I am against gay marriage in my faith because in religion, marriage means more than just 'who you love'. The 'who you love' rule is fine as far as a government goes. And this law, I am almost certain will help erode away religious rights even in the church.

 

[coldseat]

So Obergefell would overturn interracial marriages as well? The Supreme court proposes legislation to the senate?

I've already explained it. Read up on your own if you don't understand. What I say to you falls on deaf ears.

The real question you are flailing around about is whether the state should define marriage or if the federal government?

Flailing? No, I wasn't talking about that at all. You asked a question and I answered it directly.

Why do you think the federal government has the right to define marriage but not the state government?

Why do you think the state government has the right to define marriage and not the federal government? The reason any government defines marriage at all is for laws dealing with taxes, property law, inheritance and family/custodial law. Since those are the reason, the federal government absolutely has the right define marriage. I'm guessing you didn't argue against DOMA when it passed and was the law, until Obergefell overturned it, in favor of states rights. But what would I know ...

And just be clear. I am not against gay marriage. I am against gay marriage in my faith because in religion, marriage means more than just 'who you love'. The 'who you love' rule is fine as far as a government goes. And this law, I am almost certain will help erode away religious rights even in the church.

Okay

 

[MT15]

So Obergefell would overturn interracial marriages as well? The Supreme court proposes legislation to the senate?

The real question you are flailing around about is whether the state should define marriage or if the federal government?

Why do you think the federal government has the right to define marriage but not the state government?

And just be clear. I am not against gay marriage. I am against gay marriage in my faith because in religion, marriage means more than just 'who you love'. The 'who you love' rule is fine as far as a government goes. And this law, I am almost certain will help erode away religious rights even in the church.

This law has no (zero) effect on your church or your faith. That’s a completely unsupported assertion by you. Nobody is flailing around, btw.

A sitting US R senator said just very recently that states should have the right to outlaw interracial or same sex marriages. He did walk it back after a huge backlash, but I think he spoke what was in his heart. And people who are dining with the leader of the R party certainly want to outlaw same sex marriage, birth control, interracial marriage, and much more.

If you want the laws of this country to completely align with your religious beliefs and force everyone else to live by your beliefs then perhaps it is you who live in the wrong country.

 

[Optimus Prime]

And just be clear. I am not against gay marriage. I am against gay marriage in my faith

?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

How is inter racial marriage an innate characteristic? I think you got your 'key words talking points' mixed up again. So again, why do you link these two?

Can you tell me what group in politics wants to outlaw interracial marriages?

Race is innate and anyone that couldn't infer that from my post is unequipped to have this conversation.