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Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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

 

[MT15]

Apparently horse medication is okay now

It wasn’t the fact it was horse medication so much as it was totally ineffective. And it was horse medication, lol. They took horse medication that DIDN’T WORK.

 

[MT15]

Well, Shapiro is openly calling on the SC to overturn Obergefell, no big surprise. This Roe ruling will embolden the fascists for sure. And what is going on with his eyebrows? They look like they are becoming sentient or something.

 

[Incumbent]

It wasn’t the fact it was horse medication so much as it was totally ineffective. And it was horse medication, lol. They took horse medication that DIDN’T WORK.

The circumstances, if it came to it, would be fundamentally different, as well. People pursuing alternate therapies because they chose to vs the desperation of women at a time when they are being denied access to safer and established medical procedures.

 

[J-DONK]

Joe is Catholic. Are you bringing this up to bash the tyranny of a over-represented catholic minority? Alito will try to make up some reason to overturn. It's by design that 2/3's of the court is Catholic. Is that why you posted this?

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

This is textbook you -- another silly jab. You don't even bother to express your position on abortion. It's just another anti-Dem gotcha post with no substance. Jousting at windmills pointlessly like your obsession over the Durham investigation. Tabloid stuff. Now do you understand why people tend not to take you seriously? Intellectually lazy.

 

[J-DONK]

This is textbook you -- another silly jab. You don't even bother to express your position on abortion. It's just another anti-Dem gotcha post with no substance. Jousting at windmills pointlessly like your obsession over the Durham investigation. Tabloid stuff. Now do you understand why people tend not to take you seriously? Intellectually lazy.

It's always one step away from a decent conversation as well. He could have made an entire conversation topic around "If Joe Biden doesn't remove the filibuster, and court pack. Should he take criticism over his faith, and previous voting history? After all a catholic majority overturned Roe V Wade." That's not a bad point.

 

[MT15]

It’s like they’re trying to outdo each other to see who can punish women the most:

 

[superchuck500]

So the result of this couldn’t be any clearer: a pregnant woman (or girl) most certainly cannot go to prenatal doctors care until she is certain she is going to have the baby.

It’s insanity. In the name of protecting the unborn the law would reduce proper prenatal care and monitoring fetal health.

 

[superchuck500]

This is an interesting opinion that seems to share some of what @superchuck500 has expressed and has that concern:

Why the ‘leaked’ Alito opinion will be especially worrying to supporters of a constitutional right to an abortion

3rd May 2022 I am not an American lawyer but I am a strong supporter of the fundamental right of a woman to choose to have an abortion, and so I have read what appears to be a leaked draft judgment…

davidallengreen.com

"And the worrying quality of the Alito opinion is not that it is a superficial counter-objection to Roe v Wade, but that it is detailed and reasoned in a way that the original judgment is not.

This in turn will mean, if adopted by the majority of the court, that reversing this reversal will be even more difficult.

And this creates a dreadful situation for supporters of the right to choose as a fundamental right across the United States, as opposed to the issue being left to different states.

It means that nothing less than a constitutional amendment is now needed – for even a federal law – ‘codification’ – may now be vulnerable to being struck down by the Supreme Court."

I'm not sure I'd entirely agree, but then, I'm not a lawyer so I'm pretty sure I'm not in a position to disagree either. There does seem to be reason for it be a valid concern at the very least.

It's interesting analysis but I think it's way premature to declare the opinion "reverse-proof" based on reviewing a draft for 48 hours.

I think the codification issue is distinct from the Supreme Court question that forms the basis for Roe, Casey, and now Dobbs. There, the Court is dealing with the question of whether a state law limiting a woman's access to abortion violates the Constitution protections of individual rights.

The codification question is whether a federal statute guaranteeing a woman's access to abortion services is constitutional from a federalism standpoint: does the U.S. Congress have federal authority to govern whether residents within the individual states have access to a form of medical care that includes abortion. Federal power is limited and any federal statute must reasonably relate to those areas where the federal government is empowered to act.

 

[Taurus]

So the result of this couldn’t be any clearer: a pregnant woman (or girl) most certainly cannot go to prenatal doctors care until she is certain she is going to have the baby.

It’s insanity. In the name of protecting the unborn the law would reduce proper prenatal care and monitoring fetal health.

Or set up a surveillance state the likes of which Orwell could never even dream of.

 

[superchuck500]

Or set up a surveillance state the likes of which Orwell could never even dream of.

Yeah, it's crazy. I saw a thread about how young women these days use period tracking apps for a number of reasons. But basically that's now potential evidence in a murder case against them so they should cease using them in any state that has a criminal abortion law.

I also think it's going to be really challenging to navigate the whole privileges and immunities question - the vast majority of those cases have had to with things like administrative issues, access to public services, and whatnot. It's far more acute when you're dealing with conduct in one state that is completely legal, and in another state, it's forking murder.

 

[MT15]

So the result of this couldn’t be any clearer: a pregnant woman (or girl) most certainly cannot go to prenatal doctors care until she is certain she is going to have the baby.

It’s insanity. In the name of protecting the unborn the law would reduce proper prenatal care and monitoring fetal health.

What more evidence does anyone need? It’s not about babies, it’s about controlling women. If they cared about babies they wouldn’t have voted against universal pre-K. They wouldn’t have voted against parental leave, which most Western countries have. They wouldn’t have voted against the child care tax credit. I firmly believe it is tied up with the “great replacement theory” for a lot of people.

 

[MT15]

So the result of this couldn’t be any clearer: a pregnant woman (or girl) most certainly cannot go to prenatal doctors care until she is certain she is going to have the baby.

It’s insanity. In the name of protecting the unborn the law would reduce proper prenatal care and monitoring fetal health.

It also places every woman who suffers a miscarriage into the “suspicion of murder” category.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Right on cue
===========
Newsmax, the right-wing media alternative, has promoted several baseless claims in recent years, from rigged voting machines to vaccines going against nature. But on Tuesday, a host on the network made a new unfounded allegation: that Ketanji Brown Jackson — who does not yet serve on the Supreme Court — was behind the leaked draft decision on Roe v. Wade.

Grant Stinchfield made the claim on his show Tuesday, the night after Politico reported on the draft that, if it holds, would end the constitutional right to abortion access. Stinchfield, citing no evidence, referred to Jackson as his “first suspect when it comes to the leak.”

“I believe she is capable of undermining the court this way,” Stinchfield said.

Jackson has not yet been sworn in as a Supreme Court justice and did not hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — the case about Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban and the subject of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s draft opinion. That draft circulated among Alito’s fellow justices on Feb. 10, Politico reported, more than two weeks before President Biden nominated Jackson to the high court and nearly two months before the Senate confirmed her.

Jackson won’t take the bench for official duty until the first day of the court’s next term on Oct. 3, although she’s expected to join the court in late June or early July once the justices’ summer recess begins, The Post reported. Despite not joining the court for months, Jackson would probably start organizing her chambers and hiring staff before then, The Post reported in early April after she was confirmed...........

Newsmax host accuses Ketanji Brown Jackson of leaking Roe draft before she’s sworn in

 

[superchuck500]

What more evidence does anyone need? It’s not about babies, it’s about controlling women. If they cared about babies they wouldn’t have voted against universal pre-K. They wouldn’t have voted against parental leave, which most Western countries have. They wouldn’t have voted against the child care tax credit. I firmly believe it is tied up with the “great replacement theory” for a lot of people.

Yeah, it's definitely not about babies. Like, that claim is a complete lie at this point.

 

[J-DONK]

It also places every woman who suffers a miscarriage into the “suspicion of murder” category.

My first thought was what about people who causes miscarriages. Men who commit IPV? Any Manager who makes a pregnant woman do strenuous activity?

I love how even the bible doesn't go this hard. It's like theocracy concentrated.

 

[porculator]

It's a huge problem in both federal and statewide elections Here in Texas, the politics of the state shouldn't be so extreme. While there is no denying that Republicans hold an edge overall in the state, as they always win the statewide races. The politics of the of the legislature should not be as extreme as they are. As in all elections, rural voters have more voting power than urban voters. Their vote counts more. You couple that with gerrymandering the state house and senate are extremely skewed to the extreme right.

I live in Virginia whose politics are probably about as sane as state politics can get. There was a ballot measure 2 years ago to decide whether the state legislatures or an independent commission (approved by the state supreme court) would approve the districts. At the time, the R's controlled the legislature so theoretically they would be drawing the lines to benefit themselves, but as the election came closer it became more obvious that democrats were going to flip it (thanks Donald), so of course then the R's and D's immediately flip flopped on whether the legislature or the commission should draw the lines. Ultimately the voters saw through the absurdity in it and voted for the commission in a landslide.

I realize I'm fortunate to live in one of the smart states when I throw my hands up and say let everyone be as stupid as they want. But I just don't see the benefit in trying to force some of these states to "be better." Especially considering American's tendencies to double down on being terrible when people call them out on it.

 

[brandon]

Any Manager who makes a pregnant woman do strenuous activity?

I mean, what about women who just continue working out on a regular basis?

It's generally considered healthy during pregnancy, but sometimes it isn't. If it causes the miscarriage, is she guilty?