Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (2 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Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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.

 

[DaveXA]

Please.

Ok...

 

[DaveXA]

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

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[DaveXA]

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.

Yep.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

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.

Point taken.

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.

Then we should keep a serious eye on it and point to it when it happens.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

It isn't "we" who would be disagreeing. It is you disagreeing with the law.

"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

 

[SFIDC3]

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.

Why do you keep saying its not a church vs state issue? It’s a church vs federal court precedence issue….if you don’t think religion (in this case Christian) is the reason Roe was overturned then lets stop the discussion now….its pointless…

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.

You better believe if the SC liars had a chance to pass an anti abortion federal law, they would….fortunately that is a bridge too far unless they wanted to start a revolution (which I wouldn’t put past them)…..

 

[DaveXA]

It isn't "we" who would be disagreeing. It is you disagreeing with the law.

"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

I don't disagree with the law. I disagree that the law applies here. That's where we disagree. You have your opinion, I have mine. Let's move on.

 

[DaveXA]

Why do you keep saying its not a church vs state issue? It’s a church vs federal court precedence issue….if you don’t think religion (in this case Christian) is the reason Roe was overturned then lets stop the discussion now….its pointless…

I think religion had an indirect influence on the Roe issue, but I don't think it's the sole reason. It was as much political as it was religious.

You better believe if the SC liars had a chance to pass an anti abortion federal law, they would….fortunately that is a bridge too far unless they wanted to start a revolution (which I wouldn’t put past them)…..

Maybe, but SCOTUS doesn't make law. They're supposed to interpret it. Regardless, I don't think a national abortion for or against will ever come to fruition. Roe was considered "settled law" for 50 years, yet it was never codified. I don't think anything gets codified either way anytime soon. And certainly not with a narrowly divided Congress.

 

[MT15]

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.

No, it won’t. What will though are multiple cases where people like you are trying to force other people to live by your religious rules. You guys are all about it right now.

 

[MT15]

I think religion had an indirect influence on the Roe issue, but I don't think it's the sole reason. It was as much political as it was religious.



Maybe, but SCOTUS doesn't make law. They're supposed to interpret it. Regardless, I don't think a national abortion for or against will ever come to fruition. Roe was considered "settled law" for 50 years, yet it was never codified. I don't think anything gets codified either way anytime soon. And certainly not with a narrowly divided Congress.

Dave - I do think that the states who have passed these very restrictive abortion laws have crossed the line between church and state. That’s why there are several suits against these states right now by Jewish people and people of other faiths, saying that the restrictions are contrary to their own religious beliefs and that they are forcing them to live by fundamentalist Christian and Catholic beliefs.

 

[superchuck500]

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.

That doesn’t say what you’re suggesting it says.

And the idea that an American lawmaker cannot cite religion as a basis for his or her support of a law or policy is nonsense. The question is whether the law or policy itself establishes official religion or requires the practice of religion.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

That doesn’t say what you’re suggesting it says.

Go on, I'm listening.

BTW:

"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."

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/2140/abortion-privacy-rights-and-religion

 

[SystemShock]

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.

That sounds good, but we know the real reason why the SC pushed back abortion to the States, and that reason is giving red States the ability to ban abortions for residents of that State, and not because it makes sense constitutionally. And that decision was based on religious zealousness and interpretation of a religious book.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

That doesn’t say what you’re suggesting it says.

And the idea that an American lawmaker cannot cite religion as a basis for his or her support of a law or policy is nonsense. The question is whether the law or policy itself establishes official religion or requires the practice of religion.

The religious right isn't taking an anti-abortion stance in support of a law they are producing law based on religion. We are living under the law of the Christian church right now when it comes to abortion. Evangelicals have forced Americans to live under their religious beliefs.

 

[superchuck500]

Go on, I'm listening.

The idea that an American lawmaker cannot cite religion as a basis for his or her support of a law or policy is nonsense. And when they do, it doesn’t involve citizens being subjected to religion against their will. The case you cite involved a nativity scene at a courthouse (and a dissent isn’t law).

Are you aware that the Supreme Court has in modern times ruled that towns can open meetings with prayer as long as they don’t exclude anyone who wishes to lead the “prayer” time slot? Or that a public high school coach did not violate the establishment clause by conducting prayers on the 50 yard line after games?

If you really want me to expound - with case citation - to explain to you what I think it well settled and beyond dispute, I will. But really? You’re grossly expanding the meaning is the establishment clause and suggesting it requires the complete divorce of religion from all aspects of governing - when both the text of the clause and the Supreme Court say no such thing.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

If you really want me to expound - with case citation - to explain to you what I think it well settled and beyond dispute, I will. But really? You’re grossly expanding the meaning is the establishment clause and suggesting it requires the complete divorce of religion from all aspects of governing.........

Nonsense.

"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."

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/2140/abortion-privacy-rights-and-religion

 

[superchuck500]

Nonsense.

"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."

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/2140/abortion-privacy-rights-and-religion

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

I didn't say it was, obviously. I'm just giving you a little peek into how others feel so perhaps you'll realize how far off you are in this case.