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Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

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

How? By passing laws that are religious in nature.

 

[Farb]

?

I know, when someone talks faith, morals and values, it is sometimes hard for the left to process.
Same sex marriage in law=fine. Same sex marriage in my church/faith= not fine. Hope this helps.

 

[Farb]

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

So you are saying people are born with an innate love for a specific race?

 

[Farb]

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

how long has this been a law? It will come, despite the weak provision put in by the spineless Rs that supported it.

 

[Farb]

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

yet. Once the Fed declares something a civil right, how long until a gay couple wants to have their ceremony in a church because of the beauty? Like I said, this will wind up before the SC.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Abortion, Privacy Rights and Religion

The rights to privacy and First Amendment freedom of religion have been raised as constitutional protections for a woman's right to have an abortion. But the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed in 2022 when it overturned precedent linking these rights and upholding a Mississippi law banning abortion.

www.mtsu.edu

"One argument: Abortion bans based on religious beliefs violate church-state separation

More recent pro-choice arguments based on the First Amendment focus on the free exercise and establishment clauses. The arguments are not completely new, having been advanced in part by Justice John Paul Stevens in Thornburg v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (1986), Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992).

Stevens’ primary argument was that because abortion laws rested on what he believed to be a theologically based belief that fetuses were human at conception, such laws constituted an unlawful establishment of religion. Others have argued that anti-abortion laws were part of an effort to enforce certain theologically based views of gender norms, typically attributed to the religious right.

"Justice White is also surely wrong in suggesting that the governmental interest in protecting fetal life is equally compelling during the entire period from the moment of conception until the moment of birth. Again, I recognize that a powerful theological argument can be made for that position, but I believe our jurisdiction is limited to the evaluation of secular state interests." — Justice Stevens in concurring opinion in Thornburg."

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

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)….

Well, it's an interesting debate and one we should keep an eye on moving forward.

 

[Farb]

"One argument: Abortion bans based on religious beliefs violate church-state separation

More recent pro-choice arguments based on the First Amendment focus on the free exercise and establishment clauses. The arguments are not completely new, having been advanced in part by Justice John Paul Stevens in Thornburg v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (1986), Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992).

Stevens’ primary argument was that because abortion laws rested on what he believed to be a theologically based belief that fetuses were human at conception, such laws constituted an unlawful establishment of religion. Others have argued that anti-abortion laws were part of an effort to enforce certain theologically based views of gender norms, typically attributed to the religious right.

"Justice White is also surely wrong in suggesting that the governmental interest in protecting fetal life is equally compelling during the entire period from the moment of conception until the moment of birth. Again, I recognize that a powerful theological argument can be made for that position, but I believe our jurisdiction is limited to the evaluation of secular state interests." — Justice Stevens in concurring opinion in Thornburg."

Do you think that any that votes based on their religious values/morals/teachings should be banned from voting?

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Do you think that any that votes based on their religious values/morals/teachings should be banned from voting?

I don't recommend banning people from voting. How about you? Would you like to ban some people from voting?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So you are saying people are born with an innate love for a specific race?

No, and congratulations on confirming how unequipped you are to have a simple conversation. You're a joke, Farb.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

how long has this been a law? It will come, despite the weak provision put in by the spineless Rs that supported it.

This is a really wishy-washy way of saying that it isn't happening and your church is free to not participate.

 

[DaveXA]

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….

I get that, but none of that has anything to do with the establishment clause. It's not a church vs state issue. It's a federal vs state government issue. The states have the discretion to decide how strict or lenient their abortion laws are.

Now at the federal level things could change again based on new case law, but that's not where things are at the moment.

It's up to the citizens of each state to determine that their current laws don't do enough to protect people. It is what it is.

And like I stated earlier, if it were me. I wouldn't have joined the majority to overturn Roe.

 

[DaveXA]

How? By passing laws that are religious in nature.

Except no law was passed. A court precedent was struck down. I'm not seeing any religious federal law passed as a result of the decision. Roe was unfortunately never codified.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Except no law was passed. A court precedent was struck down. I'm not seeing any religious federal law passed as a result of the decision. Roe was unfortunately never codified.

Please.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

I get that, but none of that has anything to do with the establishment clause. It's not a church vs state issue. It's a federal vs state government issue. The states have the discretion to decide how strict or lenient their abortion laws are.

Now at the federal level things could change again based on new case law, but that's not where things are at the moment.

It's up to the citizens of each state to determine that their current laws don't do enough to protect people. It is what it is.

And like I stated earlier, if it were me. I wouldn't have joined the majority to overturn Roe.

Yes it is:

"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

 

[samiam5211]

I don't think we should expect individual people to separate their religious views from their political views.

I think expecting that is ridiculous. It's not even possible for someone to do.

Government shouldn't base decisions on religion, but in a system where the people have influence over their government, the religious views of the people are going to shape the government to some extent.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

I know, when someone talks faith, morals and values, it is sometimes hard for the left to process.
Same sex marriage in law=fine. Same sex marriage in my church/faith= not fine. Hope this helps.

Personally, i don't think chuches should be forced to marry same sex couples. But i also think that if you are a justice of the peace or a gov't official, you should have zero rights to deny that. If your gov't job is to perform marraige or approve marriage license,etc, then if you refuse, you should be fired on the spot. Personal beliefs should not alow exceptions to your job. My belief is Gov't has no right to tell religion rules on same sex marriages, but also that religion should have zero say in same sex marriages when it comes to legality.

 

[DaveXA]

Personally, i don't think chuches should be forced to marry same sex couples. But i also think that if you are a justice of the peace or a gov't official, you should have zero rights to deny that. If your gov't job is to perform marraige or approve marriage license,etc, then if you refuse, you should be fired on the spot. Personal beliefs should not alow exceptions to your job. My belief is Gov't has no right to tell religion rules on same sex marriages, but also that religion should have zero say in same sex marriages when it comes to legality.

Indeed.