Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (6 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Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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.

 

[superchuck500]

Ohio GOP legislature wants to remove the judiciary’s ability to enforce the new amendment.

Which of course im sure that law would be unconstitutional.

 

[V Chip]

When will they all quit lying about “abortion up until nine months”? Nobody with half a brain believes that. It’s such a stupid, deliberate lie.

So you're saying at least three quarters of Republicans believe that?

 

[V Chip]

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.

 

[DaveXA]

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.

 

[Optimus Prime]

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.…….

Ohio Republicans move to exclude judges from interpreting enshrined abortion rights

After stinging defeat in a statewide vote, GOP lawmakers seek to move jurisdiction to legislature for constitutional amendment

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

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.……

Judge blocks Idaho law stopping adults from helping minors seeking abortion

The law was first major push sine fall of Roe to explicitly block people from crossing state lines to access abortion care

www.theguardian.com

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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.…….

Ohio Republicans move to exclude judges from interpreting enshrined abortion rights

After stinging defeat in a statewide vote, GOP lawmakers seek to move jurisdiction to legislature for constitutional amendment

www.theguardian.com

As opposed to mischief by anti-choice legislators that are pissed because the people voted.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

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 .

 

[superchuck500]

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.

 

[Taurus]

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?"

 

[MT15]

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.

 

[MT15]

 

[superchuck500]

 

[DaveXA]

Well, charging and getting a conviction are 2 different things. I'd hope the courts will not allow that to be considered reliable evidence.

 

[Taurus]

Well, charging and getting a conviction are 2 different things. I'd hope the courts will not allow that to be considered reliable evidence.

Simply being charged and having to defend yourself is life-ruining.

 

[DaveXA]

Simply being charged and having to defend yourself is life-ruining.

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.

 

[LA - L.A.]

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.

 

[Maxp]

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.