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Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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.

Can you show where your religion (Catholicism, I believe) or your church is being forced to participate in any way?

 

[DaveXA]

?

Separation of church and state. Marriages sanctioned by the state are separate from marriages sanctioned by the church. A church can choose not to recognize a state sanctioned marriage that is contrary to their faith. Whether right or wrong is a different issue.

 

[MT15]

Separation of church and state. Marriages sanctioned by the state are separate from marriages sanctioned by the church. A church can choose not to recognize a state sanctioned marriage that is contrary to their faith. Whether right or wrong is a different issue.

And as far as I know nobody is trying to change how any church decides to sanction marriage.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

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

I didn't describe anything of the kind.

For example, I have 78 years' worth of experiences that have nothing to do with religion. There's some spirituality I draw from but I don't inflict that on others. If, for example, I'm on a jury where a decision of guilty means the death penalty, I would vote guilty if I so believed, even though that would be contrary to my Buddhist beliefs.

 

[superchuck500]

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.

I wasn’t talking about beliefs - I was talking about law, or more specifically the establishment clause.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

I wasn’t talking about beliefs - I was talking about law, or more specifically the establishment clause.

You: "The viewpoints of the individuals involved are informed by all sorts of experiences, educations, and beliefs including religious and moral views..."

 

[superchuck500]

You: "The viewpoints of the individuals involved are informed by all sorts of experiences, educations, and beliefs including religious and moral views..."

Yes and that doesn’t violate the establishment clause.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Yes and that doesn’t violate the establishment clause.

This started because former VP Pence stated that his anti-abortion stance comes directly from his belief that Jesus Christ is his savior. I say that violates the establishment clause because it "involves citizens in religion against their will".

"In County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989), a group of justices led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in his dissent developed a coercion test: the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church or involve citizens in religion against their will."

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state

 

[DaveXA]

And as far as I know nobody is trying to change how any church decides to sanction marriage.

Indeed.

 

[DaveXA]

This started because former VP Pence stated that his anti-abortion stance comes directly from his belief that Jesus Christ is his savior. I say that violates the establishment clause because it "involves citizens in religion against their will".

"In County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989), a group of justices led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in his dissent developed a coercion test: the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church or involve citizens in religion against their will."

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state

Pence, by stating what he said isn't providing direct aid to his religion that would establish his religion as a state church. It's already settled law that state officials can have informed views guided by their faith. They just can't use those views to establish a state sanctioned religion or force people to adhere to church doctrines.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Pence, by stating what he said isn't providing direct aid to his religion that would establish his religion as a state church. It's already settled law that state officials can have informed views guided by their faith. They just can't use those views to establish a state sanctioned religion or force people to adhere to church doctrines.

A law that is created due to religious beliefs "involves citizens in religion against their will." Further not only did Pence state what he stated, but the evangelicals in this country also pushed Trump to pick Supreme Court candidates according to their, evangelicals', religious anti-abortion beliefs. That violates the establishment clause.

Again:

"In County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989), a group of justices led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in his dissent developed a coercion test: the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church or involve citizens in religion against their will."

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state

Conservative Christians need to back off of pushing women to follow their religious beliefs.

 

[DaveXA]

A law that is created due to religious beliefs "involves citizens in religion against their will." Further not only did Pence state what he stated, but the evangelicals in this country also pushed Trump to pick Supreme Court candidates according to their, evangelicals', religious anti-abortion beliefs. That violates the establishment clause.

Again:

"In County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989), a group of justices led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in his dissent developed a coercion test: the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church or involve citizens in religion against their will."

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state

By that definition, it's not a violation of the establishment clause. You'll have to point out specifically what line was crossed in what action because I'm not seeing it.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

By that definition, it's not a violation of the establishment clause. You'll have to point out specifically what line was crossed in what action because I'm not seeing it.

I did, twice.

for the 3rd time:

"In County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989), a group of justices led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in his dissent developed a coercion test: the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church or involve citizens in religion against their will."

 

[SFIDC3]

I did, twice.

for the 3rd time:

"In County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989), a group of justices led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in his dissent developed a coercion test: the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church or involve citizens in religion against their will."

To me this is crystal clear, I’m not a lawyer but what the SC did in striking down Roe vs Wade clearly involves citizens in religion against their will….there is nothing eluding to type of religion so I interpret that as meaning any and all (in this case Christian wackjobs)….

 

[DaveXA]

To me this is crystal clear, I’m not a lawyer but what the SC did in striking down Roe vs Wade clearly involves citizens in religion against their will….there is nothing eluding to type of religion so I interpret that as meaning any and all (in this case Christian wackjobs)….

While I don't necessarily agree with striking down Roe, that's not involving religion against anyone's will. The states have discretion to allow or not allow abortions. They're free to continue previously established law or change their laws to make it more or less restrictive.

Now if the court allows for a nationwide ban on abortions, then I might be inclined to agree it's a violation of the establishment clause.

 

[DaveXA]

I did, twice.

for the 3rd time:

"In County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989), a group of justices led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in his dissent developed a coercion test: the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church or involve citizens in religion against their will."

You're saying the what, not the how. I don't buy it.

 

[SFIDC3]

While I don't necessarily agree with striking down Roe, that's not involving religion against anyone's will. The states have discretion to allow or not allow abortions. They're free to continue previously established law or change their laws to make it more or less restrictive.

Now if the court allows for a nationwide ban on abortions, then I might be inclined to agree it's a violation of the establishment clause.

I couldn’t disagree more….striking down an accepted over 50 year precedent of law for no good reason other than there are a bunch of radical un-American Christian whack jobs on the SC is going to result in a lot of women not having the health care and privacy protections they need and deserve…it is the definition of involving religion against one’s will……

I mean it when I say it would be karmic justice if anytime a woman/girl/child dies because of inability to receive the healthcare they deserve because of this ruling…..one of the SC radicals should die….

I think in the long term this is going to backfire on the right wing nut jobs but the cost is too high and it should have never come to this…..separation of church and state be damned….

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

While I don't necessarily agree with striking down Roe, that's not involving religion against anyone's will. The states have discretion to allow or not allow abortions. They're free to continue previously established law or change their laws to make it more or less restrictive.
Now if the court allows for a nationwide ban on abortions, then I might be inclined to agree it's a violation of the establishment clause.

"In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court held that the establishment clause is one of the liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, making it applicable to state laws and local ordinances."

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state