Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (4 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Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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.

 

[MT15]

i have no doubt some woman who suffers a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage somewhere will be convicted of murder if this goes through.

 

[Taurus]

i have no doubt some woman who suffers a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage somewhere will be convicted of murder if this goes through.

The first ones will be black. The rest, poor.

 

[RobF]

i have no doubt some woman who suffers a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage somewhere will be convicted of murder if this goes through.

It's inevitable, as can be seen by it already having happened, in the US and globally. E.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59214544

 

[el caliente]

The first ones will be black. The rest, poor.

Given the demographics of women having abortions, this seems about right.

 

[superchuck500]

i have no doubt some woman who suffers a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage somewhere will be convicted of murder if this goes through.

I think that some element of intent always has to be present, in any state, for murder. Where it gets really vague (and ugly) is where the negligent/reckless homicide or manslaughter come in for something like drug use or some other activity that was ostensibly unrelated to the fetus.

 

[Bolo]

The democrats have had decades to codify this into law when they've held the majority of congress. To be fair though, A bit harder to do right now because of Manchin and Sinema would uphold the filibuster which would prevent them from ramming this through. The leak comes at a time where Biden is getting absolutely shredded because whether its fair or not, he's the man in charge during gross, runaway inflation and unacceptable gas prices. Biden is also getting waxed in geopolitics. Seriously, how do you get outdone by Boris freaking Johnson? AKA, CHUCKY. Shut up and go to Ukraine already, sending petrified Nancy who animates like a damn ENT from Lord of the Rings to go over there isn't good enough. Biden needs to get his butt to Kyiv like yesterday instead of sending those clowns in his stead.

Meanwhile, the Republicant's, especially those in Louisiana, better becareful of what they wish for should the supreme court kick this back to the states and all the 1950's boomer mentality politicians run to their state legislatures to smile when trigger laws go into effect and ban abortions. Big businesses aren't going to come to your states, you'll lose Superbowls, final fours, a bunch of national events that dump millions into local economies. Abortion tourism sounds awful to me and those who can't afford to be an abortion tourist will probably result to measures that are very dangerous to themselves.

I don't have much opinion on the moral compass of the abortion issue. I'm just a man who isn't interested in kids nor will he ever get married. Also, I was told that women are strong, independent and don't need a man, so why should I even lift a finger? I'm just gonna stand over here and watch this shirtshow unfold.

 

[superchuck500]

The democrats have had decades to codify this into law when they've held the majority of congress. To be fair though, A bit harder to do right now because of Manchin and Sinema would uphold the filibuster which would prevent them from ramming this through.

It's debatable that Democrats ever could have passed an abortion statute but I think we'd end up in the same place if all else remains the same. The pro-life organizations that took a long game based on judicial appointment would have the same justices in place that would rule that Roe/Casey were wrongly decided and there is no constitutional basis for the right to abortion. And that would mean that any federal statute guaranteeing the right to abortion would have be based on some enumerated power of the federal government . . . a hurdle that is going to be difficult to pass without the right being protected by the Constitution.

 

[brandon]

Yep. Codifying it into law doesn't matter if the law can be deemed unconstitutional by the court.

The only fix is a constitutional admendment, which is literally impossible to get.

There's no fix here outside of a different Supreme Court makeup.

 

[el caliente]

The democrats have had decades to codify this into law when they've held the majority of congress. To be fair though, A bit harder to do right now because of Manchin and Sinema would uphold the filibuster which would prevent them from ramming this through. The leak comes at a time where Biden is getting absolutely shredded because whether its fair or not, he's the man in charge during gross, runaway inflation and unacceptable gas prices. Biden is also getting waxed in geopolitics. Seriously, how do you get outdone by Boris freaking Johnson? AKA, CHUCKY. Shut up and go to Ukraine already, sending petrified Nancy who animates like a damn ENT from Lord of the Rings to go over there isn't good enough. Biden needs to get his butt to Kyiv like yesterday instead of sending those clowns in his stead.

Meanwhile, the Republicant's, especially those in Louisiana, better becareful of what they wish for should the supreme court kick this back to the states and all the 1950's boomer mentality politicians run to their state legislatures to smile when trigger laws go into effect and ban abortions. Big businesses aren't going to come to your states, you'll lose Superbowls, final fours, a bunch of national events that dump millions into local economies. Abortion tourism sounds awful to me and those who can't afford to be an abortion tourist will probably result to measures that are very dangerous to themselves.

I don't have much opinion on the moral compass of the abortion issue. I'm just a man who isn't interested in kids nor will he ever get married. Also, I was told that women are strong, independent and don't need a man, so why should I even lift a finger? I'm just gonna stand over here and watch this shirtshow unfold.

You take that back…Ents (after seeing the error of their ways) fought like lions to defend what was right. Nobody could ever say that about Nancy.

 

[V Chip]

i have no doubt some woman who suffers a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage somewhere will be convicted of murder if this goes through.

Actually women have already been charged with murder (or similar) for having miscarriages. This will just exponentially increase those cases.

 

[superchuck500]

Ted Cruz convinced he knows the leaker:

 

[coldseat]

Ted Cruz convinced he knows the leaker:

Cruz is so freaking racist. He never misses an opportunity to go after a minority in the most despicable way.

 

[DaveXA]

Cruz is so freaking racist. He never misses an opportunity to go after a minority in the most despicable way.

Which is ironic considering he's a minority himself.

 

[el caliente]

Ted Cruz convinced he knows the leaker:

I mean, isn’t everyone speculating at this point? Nobody knows who did it except for the leaker and the person who received the intel. This is just more of the same red meat, fed to the angry in order to keep them angry.

 

[Incumbent]

I mean, isn’t everyone speculating at this point? Nobody knows who did it except for the leaker and the person who received the intel. This is just more of the same red meat, fed to the angry in order to keep them angry.

Everyone? Are all of the other 99 senators going on air and making these kinds of direct accusations without evidence?

If others are doing that, I don't care which "side" they represent or who they are pointing the finger at; it's irresponsible and unethical, particularly of a sitting senator.

Don't misunderstand, though, this is exactly what I've come to expect from Senator Cruz.

 

[Optimus Prime]

interesting read on how we got here
===========

The antiabortion movement has almost won its holy grail. The leaked draft opinion by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. reported by Politico on Monday indicates that the Supreme Court is ready is overturn nearly 50 years of precedent and find that there is no constitutional right to an abortion.

Unless a justice in the majority changes his or her mind before the court finalizes the decision, the ruling would signal that the antiabortion movement has changed the tides of history. This success is the product of powerful conservative coalitions but, crucially, the antiabortion movement has successfully co-opted and reworked leftist rhetoric about rights.

As state legislatures in the late 1960s began to liberalize their abortion laws, the emerging antiabortion movement faced serious cultural and political obstacles. Many Americans were skeptical of religious movements imposing their will on others. They also confronted a rising feminist movement arguing that women were an oppressed class. Women’s inability to control their reproduction meant they could not be full citizens.

Recognizing the power of these claims, the nascent antiabortion movement rejected the open crusade to regulate women’s sexuality embraced by the anti-birth-control movement of the early 1960s. While anti-birth-control forces asserted that states should punish promiscuity and the women who enjoyed it, antiabortion activists understood that this explicit sexism and religiosity would no longer sell.

But the new language pioneered by the ascendant rights movements of the decade — especially the civil rights movement — offered a solution to this problem. These movements made Americans familiar with claims about the need for new laws to protect the rights of minority groups. As historian Sara Dubow and others have shown, antiabortion activists adopted this language, developing secular arguments centered on the civil rights of fetuses.

This formulation allowed them, for example, to compare abortion to slavery and the Holocaust. All three devalued or eradicated human life, they claimed. But abortion was the worst of the three, according to antiabortion activists. The growing number of abortions would eventually outpace the number of people murdered during the Holocaust or killed in the Civil War. It was also worse because the fetus was the ultimate innocent victim.

One activist wrote to his Utah legislator in 1973: “As far as I [am] concerned [Roe v. Wade] is far more tragic than anything Hitler ever did, at least his victims weren’t completely helpless and could fight to a degree for themselves.”

The arguments about murder and rights became especially potent in the 1970s, as average Americans became more fully aware of the Holocaust and began to incorporate the history of the civil rights movement into the story of American progress. The antiabortion movement put the emotional power of these histories to conservative ends.

Through this framing, fetuses became the ultimate victim of modern society and White religious conservatives recast themselves as abolitionists — not people restricting women’s freedom. In fact, in the 1970s, they rarely talked about women or their rights at all..............

Opinions | The antiabortion movement’s powerful use of language paid off

 

[Optimus Prime]

Good read on what this may mean for other rights
=================================

After Roe, what’s next for this Supreme Court?

That’s a question on a lot of people’s minds as the dust settles from Monday’s Politico story, prompted by a leaked draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, that the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.

A ruling of this magnitude is not just about the short term, however. Although Alito took pains in his opinion to state that the rationale for striking down Roe is limited to just the abortion issue, the willingness to disregard decades of settled law has certainly prompted speculation on what else might be in the Court’s sights. Is it possible that the legal foundation for other rights — like marriage equality, for example — will be targeted next by the conservative-dominated Court?

To get some answers, I reached out to 9 legal experts and asked them to step back from the news and look ahead to where the emboldened Supreme Court majority may be taking the country. Their full responses, edited for clarity and length, are below.

Melissa Murray, law professor, New York University​

Although Justice Alito insisted that the draft opinion’s antipathy for settled precedent was limited to abortion, the opinion was littered with casual references to Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 decision decriminalizing same-sex sodomy; Obergefell v. Hodges, a 2015 decision legalizing same-sex marriage; Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 decision that legalized contraceptive use; and Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 decision legalizing same-sex marriage.

More ominously, in a passage emphasizing judicial restraint, Justice Alito underscored that “respect for a legislature’s judgment applies even when the laws at issue concern matters of great social significance and moral substance.” It doesn’t take a clairvoyant to get the gist of this. What issues, beyond abortion, are leavened with “great social significance and moral substance?” Marriage, contraception, and the panoply of “heart and home” rights that scaffold our intimate lives.

Like the abortion right, these rights are implied from the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of liberty and the notion of constitutional privacy. And like abortion, they will come under fire as conservatives cast about for their next constitutional crusade.

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, law professor, Stetson University​

Justices who comprise the conservative majority on the Supreme Court have long been hostile to the right to privacy that was articulated in Griswold v. Connecticut, which protects the right to use contraception. Strict textualist justices claim the word “privacy” is not in the Constitution and thus the right to privacy does not exist.

This is the same rhetorical move that Justice Alito makes in his leaked opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. He claims that because the word “abortion” is not in the Constitution and that consequently the right to abortion does not exist.

The problem for our modern society is that many rights we care about have been protected as progeny of Griswold. This decision also gave us Loving v. Virginia, which invalidated an anti-miscegenation law, as well as Windsor and Obergefell, which articulated a right to marriage equality for same-sex couples.

After this [opinion], Loving, Windsor, and Obergefell are all on constitutionally thin ice. And the frustrating thing is Justice Alito’s ignoring the Ninth Amendment, which protects Americans’ unenumerated rights. As Roe recognized 49 years ago, the right to abortion is protected by the Ninth Amendment.

Or at least it did until this opinion becomes the law of the land.

“The last time that the Court was so closely aligned to a sectional movement during polarized time was the 1850s”...........

After Roe: 9 legal experts on what rights the Supreme Court might target next

 

[Incumbent]

I would expect less from Cruz, so I am not surprised by him fielding his opinion on the issue, much as I am not surprised when anyone fields an opinion on the topic, it’s just an opinion. Everyone has one.

Ted Cruz isn't just another somebody and singling out a Justice and her staff as suspects in a leak isn't just another opinion.

It doesn't matter should he end up being right, it's needlessly reckless and inflammatory to go about it this way.