Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Brennan77

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Apr 30, 2019
    Messages
    126
    Reaction score
    152
    Age
    42
    Location
    New Orleans
    Offline
    Well, I mean, accuracy should matter. And considering approximately 25-30% women have had an abortion at some point isn't anywhere near pretty much everyone when it's not even half of women.
    This is false.

    The large majority of women have had abortions, as the estimated percent of conceptions that end in miscarriage is 60-75%, although many of these are unknown. Miscarriage is abortion, though not elective. This is one huge problem with anti-abortion laws since the language is often vague enough to potentially criminalize miscarriage, and in fact miscarriages have resulted in women being arrested in multiple states.
     
    This is false.

    The large majority of women have had abortions, as the estimated percent of conceptions that end in miscarriage is 60-75%, although many of these are unknown. Miscarriage is abortion, though not elective. This is one huge problem with anti-abortion laws since the language is often vague enough to potentially criminalize miscarriage, and in fact miscarriages have resulted in women being arrested in multiple states.

    I'm talking about the elective procedure. And approximately 1 out 4 is a widely accepted figure for women who have elected to have the procedure. I agree with what you're saying tho.
     
    Four Ohio Republican state lawmakers are seeking to strip judges of their power to interpret an abortion rights amendment after voters opted to enshrine those rights in the state’s constitution this week.

    Republican state house representatives Jennifer Gross, Bill Dean, Melanie Miller and Beth Lear said in a news release on Thursday that they will push to have Ohio’s legislature – not the courts – make any decisions about the amendment passed on Tuesday.

    “To prevent mischief by pro-abortion courts with [the amendment], Ohio legislators will consider removing jurisdiction from the judiciary over this ambiguous ballot initiative,” said the mix of fairly new and veteran lawmakers who are all vice-chairs of various house committees. “The Ohio legislature alone will consider what, if any, modifications to make to existing laws based on public hearings and input from legal experts on both sides.”

    The statement also contained unsubstantiated references to “foreign election interference” by billionaires.

    It’s the latest development in the struggle over abortion rights between Ohio’s Republican-dominated legislature and the majority of the voters, who passed the amendment by a margin of 57% to 43%.

    Abortion rights advocates plan to ask the courts to repeal any remaining abortion bans and restrictions on the books in Ohio, including a mandatory 24-hour period that abortion seekers must wait before they can have the procedure and a ban on abortions after a fetal diagnosis of Down’s syndrome.…….

     
    A federal judge has temporarily blocked an Idaho law that prohibits adults from helping minors get an abortion.

    While abortion is still prohibited in Idaho with very narrow exceptions, this week’s court order marks a victory for abortion rights advocates in the state who say the now-blocked law is unconstitutional.

    This lawsuit is not about the right to an abortion. It is about much more,” said US district magistrate Debora K Grasham in her order this week. “Namely, long-standing and well recognized fundamental rights of freedom of speech, expression, due process, and parental rights. These are not competing rights, nor are they at odds.”

    Under the statute, anyone who helps a minor get an abortion could be sentenced to two or five years in prison. Adults are also prohibited from “recruiting” a pregnant minor, a term that reproductive justice advocates said is confusing and vague.……

     
    Four Ohio Republican state lawmakers are seeking to strip judges of their power to interpret an abortion rights amendment after voters opted to enshrine those rights in the state’s constitution this week.

    Republican state house representatives Jennifer Gross, Bill Dean, Melanie Miller and Beth Lear said in a news release on Thursday that they will push to have Ohio’s legislature – not the courts – make any decisions about the amendment passed on Tuesday.

    “To prevent mischief by pro-abortion courts with [the amendment], Ohio legislators will consider removing jurisdiction from the judiciary over this ambiguous ballot initiative,” said the mix of fairly new and veteran lawmakers who are all vice-chairs of various house committees. “The Ohio legislature alone will consider what, if any, modifications to make to existing laws based on public hearings and input from legal experts on both sides.”

    The statement also contained unsubstantiated references to “foreign election interference” by billionaires.

    It’s the latest development in the struggle over abortion rights between Ohio’s Republican-dominated legislature and the majority of the voters, who passed the amendment by a margin of 57% to 43%.

    Abortion rights advocates plan to ask the courts to repeal any remaining abortion bans and restrictions on the books in Ohio, including a mandatory 24-hour period that abortion seekers must wait before they can have the procedure and a ban on abortions after a fetal diagnosis of Down’s syndrome.…….


    As opposed to mischief by anti-choice legislators that are pissed because the people voted.
     
    Someone needs to spend a lot of money on ads to make sure the public understands what the GOP is trying to do to the voters voice. because if they do this to this amendment, what's next? everything they disagree with will be next.. they are trying to take away their voice and the more people know, the more PO`d they'll get and vote them out .
     
    I'm not familiar with Ohio's state constitution but they all tend to be fairly similar. I can't imagine that the legislature has the ability, with ordinary lawmaking, to define the scope of judicial review of constitutionality of a law or amendment. If it did, it could have done this a long time ago and removed that generally pesky problem of judicial review. It's nonsense - they don't have that power.
     
    I'm not familiar with Ohio's state constitution but they all tend to be fairly similar. I can't imagine that the legislature has the ability, with ordinary lawmaking, to define the scope of judicial review of constitutionality of a law or amendment. If it did, it could have done this a long time ago and removed that generally pesky problem of judicial review. It's nonsense - they don't have that power.
    But what if they do it anyway?
    I mean, that's been the whole Republican M.O. for years.

    "We'll just pass a law instructing the police to arrest anyone seeking or performing an abortion. Sure it's illegal, sure the case will get thrown out, who cares? There's enough hick sherrifs in this state who'll do it just because they want to and meanwhile you're in jail. Who's gonna cross us?"
     
    I'm not familiar with Ohio's state constitution but they all tend to be fairly similar. I can't imagine that the legislature has the ability, with ordinary lawmaking, to define the scope of judicial review of constitutionality of a law or amendment. If it did, it could have done this a long time ago and removed that generally pesky problem of judicial review. It's nonsense - they don't have that power.
    Evidently Ohio has already ignored state supreme court rulings about their gerrymandering.
     
    It can be, sure. But if the courts are rejecting that as acceptable evidence, it would stand to reason that they will be less likely to charge based on that evidence not being admissible.
    Just being questioned and investigated for a theft you didn't commit is a traumatic experience. You have to go through it yourself or know someone that did to really appreciate how bad it is.

    Now imagine you're a mother who just lost your baby at birth and law enforcement starts questioning, investigating and accusing you of killing the child you lost. The harassment alone is traumatic, even if there's no charges.
     
    Imagine the quality human being interrogating women who just lost babies because they suspect an abortion. Who are these lowlife cretins? Really never imagined we'd be living in a theocracy.
     
    Just being questioned and investigated for a theft you didn't commit is a traumatic experience. You have to go through it yourself or know someone that did to really appreciate how bad it is.

    Now imagine you're a mother who just lost your baby at birth and law enforcement starts questioning, investigating and accusing you of killing the child you lost. The harassment alone is traumatic, even if there's no charges.
    I'm not denying any of that. I'm talking about how they can get to a point where that excuse can't be used to charge someone. Ergo, if they don't allow that evidence to be admissible, that would make it less likely for them to be charged.

    I don't think they should be charged at all to begin with.
     
    Imagine the quality human being interrogating women who just lost babies because they suspect an abortion. Who are these lowlife cretins? Really never imagined we'd be living in a theocracy.
    Yeah, I don't get it either. I'm a Christian and I'm not interested in a theocracy either.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom