Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[coldseat]

How did she become pregnant? Was it through her actions or did sperm fly into her while she was walking down the street? To act like becoming pregnant just happens is silly and part of the reason a middle ground can't be reached.
We need to stop incentivizing bad behavior.

How in the world does keeping abortion legal incentivize bad behavior?

How in the world is having sex bad behavior? Are you honestly telling me that every single time you have had sex you expected a pregnancy as a result? Why should a woman who becomes pregnant be deemed the bad one when there are zero consequences for the man in such cases? This illogical train of thought is very telling.

Not only that, but the "middle ground" is what we have now with Roe v. Wade. It's that right that wants no part of a middle ground and has spent 50 years engineering a SC that will overturn Roe.

 

[brandon]

How in the world is having sex bad behavior?

He's Catholic, so...

 

[Farb]

How in the world does keeping abortion legal incentivize bad behavior?

How in the world is having sex bad behavior? Are you honestly telling me that every single time you have had sex you expected a pregnancy as a result? Why should a woman who becomes pregnant be deemed the bad one when there are zero consequences for the man in such cases? This illogical train of thought is very telling.

I am not going over my stance again on men and pregnancy.

If I can't afford to buy gas, I am not going to buy a car. Anyone can have sex as much as they like. It only takes once though and destroying the life that you created because it is inconvenient to you should be illegal.

 

[Farb]

Well, obviously, it incentivizes bad behavior because people have such a good time having abortions. They have parties to celebrate before going to the clinic, then commemorate the abortion every year like you do a birthday.

Obvious sarcasm aside, it's ridiculous to even suggest that abortion is some kind of reward or incentive for bad behavior. It's oftentimes the most gut wrenching and difficult decision a woman makes and has to live with. Nobody has a good time going through the process of getting an abortion.

Really? You sure it is not being 'celebrated' by the alt-left? Some people have said they are upset they never got to have an abortion. Granted, they are sick people but it is real.

 

[Farb]

Not only that, but the "middle ground" is what we have now with Roe v. Wade. It's that right that wants no part of a middle ground and has spent 50 years engineering a SC that will overturn Roe.

I know, there have been truly horrible case law in the country that has been overturned. Much like Roe.

 

[MT15]

I am not going over my stance again on men and pregnancy.

If I can't afford to buy gas, I am not going to buy a car. Anyone can have sex as much as they like. It only takes once though and destroying the life that you created because it is inconvenient to you should be illegal.

Your idea that most women have abortions because of convenience is messed up. It’s another symptom of the extremely low regard you have for women. I’m sure there are some women who are just generally bad people, and they may have an abortion out of selfish reasons. That just isn’t the case in the vast majority. Your views are skewed by your biases.

 

[V Chip]

I am not going over my stance again on men and pregnancy.

If I can't afford to buy gas, I am not going to buy a car. Anyone can have sex as much as they like. It only takes once though and destroying the life that you created because it is inconvenient to you should be illegal.

So your previous statement about the government removing a fetus against the will of the woman wasn’t truthful? Making abortion illegal again will result in that in the long term — that or imprisonment of pregnant women who don’t intend to carry to term.

 

[SamAndreas]

Today I saw some awful reporting by the media with regard to the Supreme Court's ruling. I recomend this article:

Court leaves Texas’ six-week abortion ban in effect and narrows abortion providers’ challenge - SCOTUSblog

Nearly six weeks after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases challenging a Texas law that bans almost all abortions in the state, the justices on Friday limited – but did not fully eliminate – the ability of abortion providers to continue their challenge in the lower courts. The court

www.scotusblog.com

The court ruled that the providers’ lawsuit can go forward against a group of state medical licensing officials, but not against the state-court judges and clerks whom the providers had also tried to sue.

The Texas law, known as S.B. 8, remains in effect. The ruling in the providers’ case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, allows the providers to return to the lower courts and seek an injunction against the licensing officials, but it’s not clear how much relief that could provide from a law that intentionally relies on private citizens for enforcement. The justices also declined to weigh in on a separate challenge to the Texas law brought by the Biden administration, and they denied the administration’s request to put the law on hold.

-----

In an 18-page opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch began by emphasizing that the court was not ruling on whether S.B. 8 is constitutional or whether it is a good idea “as a matter of public policy.” Instead, the question was whether the providers can pursue their challenge to the law against specific defendants before the law is enforced. The providers, Gorsuch explained, cannot sue to block state-court clerks from docketing lawsuits under S.B. 8, nor can they sue to block state-court judges from hearing such cases. Among other things, Gorsuch reasoned, state-court judges and clerks are not adversaries to the providers; they are neutral actors. So a pre-enforcement challenge against judges or clerks does not qualify as the kind of “controversy” required under the Constitution to bring a case in federal court, Gorsuch wrote.

-----

Chief Justice John Roberts filed an opinion that was joined by the court’s three liberal justices – Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Roberts agreed that the providers’ suit should be allowed to go forward against the licensing officials, but he would have allowed the rest of their suit to proceed as well. He emphasized that S.B. 8 “has had the effect of denying the exercise of what we have held is a right protected under the Federal Constitution.” And because of the “ongoing chilling effect of the state law,” Roberts opined, the district court “should resolve this litigation and enter appropriate relief without delay.”

Roberts then addressed the impact of S.B. 8 more broadly, observing that its “clear purpose and actual effect” “has been to nullify this Court’s rulings.” If state legislatures can pass laws to undo the rights created by the federal courts, Roberts stressed, “the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery.” “The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake,” Roberts concluded.

The courts 48 page ruling can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf

 

[Lapaz]

Today I saw some awful reporting by the media with regard to the Supreme Court's ruling. I recomend this article:

Court leaves Texas’ six-week abortion ban in effect and narrows abortion providers’ challenge - SCOTUSblog

Nearly six weeks after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases challenging a Texas law that bans almost all abortions in the state, the justices on Friday limited – but did not fully eliminate – the ability of abortion providers to continue their challenge in the lower courts. The court

www.scotusblog.com

The courts 48 page ruling can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf

I was listening to Sirius, and apparently this opens up the possibility of state laws that can't be challenged in court simply by leaving out medical licensing officials from laws. Unconstitutional laws would not be challengeable. Right to bear arms, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech can be outlawed by any state. Once a few laws cause outrage on both the right and left, I think congress will act, but it's going to be interesting to see whether the federal government supremacy can reverse this lunacy.

 

[SamAndreas]

I was listening to Sirius, and apparently this opens up the possibility of state laws that can't be challenged in court simply by leaving out medical licensing officials from laws. Unconstitutional laws would not be challengeable. Right to bear arms, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech can be outlawed by any state. Once a few laws cause outrage on both the right and left, I think congress will act, but it's going to be interesting to see whether the federal government supremacy can reverse this lunacy.

I think the courts will get to the unconstitutional issue of that law after the lower court hears the merit portion of those cases.

Today's action was limited to the preliminary procedural question about whether such a weird law can be temporarily enjoined before a court hears a case. They decided that it could not be enjoined the way the lower court tried to do it.

To enjoin that law they would basically have to order all of the Texas state lower court judges and clerks to not allow citizens to bring cases under that law. That's unheard of in America, clearly as unconstitutional as that Texas law is. Two wrongs don't make a right.

However 8 to 1 the court signaled that they don't like that Texas law one bit, and when the lower court rules on the merits, and if it works its way back up to the Supreme Court, that they will most likely strike that Texas law down for being unconstitutional.

I would think the lower court will strike the law down on it's own when the cases get to that point, and the Supreme Court will affirm that decision assuming they agree to hear the case on appeal at all.

 

[Farb]

Your idea that most women have abortions because of convenience is messed up. It’s another symptom of the extremely low regard you have for women. I’m sure there are some women who are just generally bad people, and they may have an abortion out of selfish reasons. That just isn’t the case in the vast majority. Your views are skewed by your biases.

You are looking for ghosts and sexism that is not there. I would be willing to bet that most abortions are pushed by the father.
So yes, I believe most abortions are done as a form of 'oops' birth control.

 

[Farb]

So your previous statement about the government removing a fetus against the will of the woman wasn’t truthful? Making abortion illegal again will result in that in the long term — that or imprisonment of pregnant women who don’t intend to carry to term.

I am sorry, but this is just hyperbole and fear mongering. Why does the left always scream the sky is falling instead of making actual arguments?

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Are there current laws? I honestly don't know and I am too lazy to look it up. I think intent would play a large part.

If you aren't wearing a seatbelt, that's intentional.
There are no laws that holds a pregnant women responsible if she has a miscarriage in her first trimester, it's just looked at as oops, try again..

 

[MT15]

You are looking for ghosts and sexism that is not there. I would be willing to bet that most abortions are pushed by the father.
So yes, I believe most abortions are done as a form of 'oops' birth control.

I don’t have that impression at all. Where did you get the idea that most abortions are pressed for by the father? I would be surprised if that were true.

 

[Farb]

I don’t have that impression at all. Where did you get the idea that most abortions are pressed for by the father? I would be surprised if that were true.

From being a guy mainly and and from when talking with a lot of the young women that are planning to get an abortion. Not a study or anything to back it up but just an observation I have made over the last year or so.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

From being a guy mainly and and from when talking with a lot of the young women that are planning to get an abortion. Not a study or anything to back it up but just an observation I have made over the last year or so.

"RESULTS
The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents."

Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives

Public discussion about abortion in the United States has generally focused on policy: who should be allowed to have abortions, and under what circumstances. Receiving less attention are the women behind the statistics—the 1.3 million women who obtain abortions each year1—and their reasons for...

www.guttmacher.org

"Influences from family or friends 48 5%
Would have a negative impact on family or friends 22 2%
Don't want others to know/worried others would judge 19 2%
Pressure from family or friends 11 1.2%"

https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6874-13-29 (Table 2)

 

[Farb]

Awesome. So men are not part of the problem in getting abortions!
It turns out that the vast majority are for selfish and convenience reason of the mother.
I will gladly admit you have proven me wrong.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Awesome. So men are not part of the problem in getting abortions!
It turns out that the vast majority are for selfish and convenience reason of the mother.
I will gladly admit you have proven me wrong.

Except for the fact that it's impossible to get pregnant without them.