Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (3 Viewers)

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Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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

 

[Optimus Prime]

Very interesting article
==================

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, Americans became more interested in abortion. Google Trends data, TV news trackersand polls confirm that voters are talking about reproductive rights now more than they have in years.

But not all Americans are seeing the same debate. Baby boomers might stumble on the abortion conversation as they scroll Facebook or flip through cable news channels.

Generation Z Americans — born between 1997 and 2012 — are more likely to open TikTok and see the back and forth flash across their phones.

So, in an effort to understand what American TikTok users (half of whom are under 30) are seeing, we scraped more than 1,000 viral, high-engagement videos with the #Abortion tag and analyzed them — both by running stats and watching posts.

We found two things, chiefly: pro-abortion-rights posts get more views than antiabortion videos — and the platform is almost perfectly designed to further divide us.

The basic content of these arguments is familiar: Conservatives say life begins at conception; liberals say abortion is a woman’s right and that banning it would have dire consequences.

But the nature of the conversation on TikTok is distinctive. TikTok allows people to “stitch” clips from other users into their posts — enabling creators to make a targeted broadside against another user.

In our analysis, pro-abortion-rights creators were more likely to employ this technique to react to antiabortion videos, while antiabortion posters engaged their opponents less frequently.

What’s more troubling: No company has the manpower needed to find every false or otherwise objectionable post.

Some antiabortion creators used infographics with misleading language and images, conflating Plan B and early stage birth control with late-term abortion.

Some pro-abortion-rights users used vulgar language to incite audiences’ emotions…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/interactive/2022/tiktok-abortion-debate-gen-z/?itid

 

[Optimus Prime]

Marshae Jones was five months pregnant when she was arrested for being shot in the stomach.

It was 2019, and Jones got into a fight in the parking lot of a Dollar General just outside of Birmingham, Alabama. It escalated until a woman pulled out a gun and shot her. After being rushed to the hospital, Jones was in stable condition, but the shooting caused her to miscarry.

Jones, then 28 with a young daughter, was arrested. A grand jury returned an indictment for felony manslaughter, stating that Jones “intentionally caused the death” of her fetus “by initiating a fight knowing she was five months pregnant.” She faced 20 years in prison.

Jones spent time in jail, and her name and mug shot were splashed across front pages as the case drew national attention. But the charge was eventually dropped, in part because Alabama’s manslaughter statute prohibits women from being prosecuted for their pregnancy outcomes.

Prosecutors also concluded that pursuing charges against Jones was “not in the best interest of justice.”

Vesting fetuses with full legal rights would have unintended and unfair consequences for women like Jones, which prosecutors belatedly realized. But such consequences have been a goal of the anti-abortion movement for years.

After this summer’s Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which ended nationwide abortion rights, these efforts could endanger any pregnant person in any state that enacts “fetal personhood” laws.

Abortion opponents’ stated motivation for these laws is to ensure severe punishment for patients, providers and anyone else who facilitates the end of a pregnancy in a state where the procedure is banned..........

Chris Carr, the attorney general of Georgia who is facing a tough reelection battle, has said that he doesn’t believe the law can be used to prosecute women for obtaining an abortion. But to many people, the intent of the law is clear — and Republicans, perhaps, are afraid to be honest about its implications.

“If a woman were to go to another state to seek abortion care, she could still be prosecuted here for conspiracy to commit murder or murder,” state Sen. Jen Jordan, who is challenging Carr as the Democratic nominee for attorney general, told HuffPost.

“Medication abortions, in terms of how they present, look exactly like naturally occurring miscarriages, meaning women are going to be investigated for miscarriages.”

The idea of legally defining a fetus as a person is not new, but it has gained steam in right-wing groups since the fall of Roe ― most recently in Boston, where a so-called men’s rights group hosted the “National Men’s March to Abolish Abortion and Rally for Personhood.” Georgia’s personhood law may foreshadow a frightening new chapter in the war on choice.

“It’s so important for people to understand just how significant this specific provision is, even apart from the six-week abortion ban,” Jordan said. “This is a wholesale change to who a person is in this state.”..........

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Peace]

The Right likes to bleat about censorship. This right here is the real deal, the State will punish you for talking about forbidden subjects.
And from the Right?
Not crickets...cheers.

Idaho is a pretty conservative state. There are many who believe that abortion is also murder. You take that mode of thought into the University of Idaho, and making pro-abortion comments would be the same as making pro-murder comments. In light of that thinking, it's easy to see how one could lose his job for making pro-abortion comments.

 

[Taurus]

Idaho is a pretty conservative state. There are many who believe that abortion is also murder. You take that mode of thought into the University of Idaho, and making pro-abortion comments would be the same as making pro-murder comments. In light of that thinking, it's easy to see how one could lose his job for making pro-abortion comments.

You mean like "Kill Mike Pence!"?

I mean, the mental gymnastics are easy to follow, they're just staggeringly hypocritical.

 

[coldseat]

Idaho is a pretty conservative state. There are many who believe that abortion is also murder. You take that mode of thought into the University of Idaho, and making pro-abortion comments would be the same as making pro-murder comments. In light of that thinking, it's easy to see how one could lose his job for making pro-abortion comments.

There are many that believe that capital punishment is state sanctioned murder. There are 23 states where capital punishment is outlawed. Are you suggesting that making pro-capital punishment statements in those states should lead to somebody losing their job a university and brought up on charges? Because it would be the exact same thing.

 

[MT15]

Idaho is a pretty conservative state. There are many who believe that abortion is also murder. You take that mode of thought into the University of Idaho, and making pro-abortion comments would be the same as making pro-murder comments. In light of that thinking, it's easy to see how one could lose his job for making pro-abortion comments.

Should someone lose their job though? In your view. I’m pretty sure that even in Idaho the support for leaving Roe in place is a plurality if not a majority.

 

[Peace]

Should someone lose their job though? In your view. I’m pretty sure that even in Idaho the support for leaving Roe in place is a plurality if not a majority.

No. Just like no one should lose their job for using the "N" word.

I'm happy with the SC's decision on Roe, and I'll bet the majority of Idaho feels the same way.

 

[bird]

No. Just like no one should lose their job for using the "N" word.

I'm happy with the SC's decision on Roe, and I'll bet the majority of Idaho feels the same way.

So the majority of people in Idaho are idiots. Meh.

The SCOTUS decision has no basis in the constitution. The document itself forbids three things: bills of attainder, ex post facto laws and religious tests for office. The bill of rights preserves certain things but even those things are not unlimited.

The Dobbs decision was the personal views of the majority on the court, period. They simply applied window dressing.

 

[Peace]

So the majority of people in Idaho are idiots. Meh.

Personal opinion - disqualified.

The SCOTUS decision has no basis in the constitution.

Wrong. The Constitution does not support abortion. The SCOTUS did the right thing.

The Dobbs decision was the personal views of the majority on the court, period. They simply applied window dressing.

Again, the Constitution does not support abortion. Activists do, the Constitution does not.

 

[bird]

Personal opinion - disqualified.

Wrong. The Constitution does not support abortion. The SCOTUS did the right thing.

Again, the Constitution does not support abortion. Activists do, the Constitution does not.

Wrong in multiple ways.

Yup, my opinion about Idahoans is as meaningless as your opinion.

The list of things not in the constitution is unlimited. Including the internet. Thus your opinion and the majority of the court’s decision is personal opinion, nothing more.

 

[Peace]

Wrong in multiple ways.

Opinion.

Yup, my opinion about Idahoans is as meaningless as your opinion.

So let's leave out opinions.

The list of things not in the constitution is unlimited. Including the internet. Thus your opinion and the majority of the court’s decision is personal opinion, nothing more.

You're comparing abortion rights to Internet usage?

Explain the connection.

 

[bird]

Opinion.

So let's leave out opinions.

You're comparing abortion rights to Internet usage?

Explain the connection.

No connection except…there are an unlimited number of things not mentioned in the constitution. That you and the majority of the SCOTUS don’t like abortion is fine for yourselves. Don’t have one. Beyond that the decision is personal opinion of the majority based, most likely, on religious beliefs which they would undoubtedly deny.

 

[brandon]

No. Just like no one should lose their job for using the "N" word.

Yikes.

 

[MT15]

No. Just like no one should lose their job for using the "N" word.

I'm happy with the SC's decision on Roe, and I'll bet the majority of Idaho feels the same way.

I would like to know what sort of situation at work you think it’s okay to use that word. This seems oddly specific, it’s just a little too on the nose, don’t you think?

I think you would lose that bet on Idaho.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

We got a live one here!

 

[cuddlemonkey]

No. Just like no one should lose their job for using the "N" word.

I'm happy with the SC's decision on Roe, and I'll bet the majority of Idaho feels the same way.

Ever? At all? Both public and private sector?

 

[Taurus]

Ever? At all? Both public and private sector?

As a result of a blanket ban from the Govt.
I happen to agree that simply saying a word, to discuss its usage or origins or whatever, shouldn't get you fired or charged by the government.
Using N- as a pejorative at someone? That's different.

 

[Peace]

Ever? At all? Both public and private sector?

Be more specific please.