Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    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    Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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.
     
    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.
     
    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.
    They are on a religious crusade. They will bring up charges. And people will have to hire lawyers, and go to court, and go through the whole charade... and one just has to get a judge who believes in the religious crusade to really make things miserable for defendants, who should not be defendants in the first place.
     
    Last edited:
    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.

    What makes you think that?

    You know how black people get harassed by the pigs all the time? Does it matter that driving while black isn't actually a crime? No, it doesn't. Driving while black will absolutely get you pulled over. Especially in the 'wrong' neighborhood. The racist scumbags want nothing more than an excuse.

    So why would pigs not hassle, arrest and vigorously question a woman who's suspiciously no longer pregnant when they're misogynistic arseholes to begin with? The whole point is to put their boot on her neck (metaphorically and/or literally) and make sure that uppity broad knows it's there, 24/7/365.
     
    What makes you think that?

    You know how black people get harassed by the pigs all the time? Does it matter that driving while black isn't actually a crime? No, it doesn't. Driving while black will absolutely get you pulled over. Especially in the 'wrong' neighborhood. The racist scumbags want nothing more than an excuse.

    So why would pigs not hassle, arrest and vigorously question a woman who's suspiciously no longer pregnant when they're misogynistic arseholes to begin with? The whole point is to put their boot on her neck (metaphorically and/or literally) and make sure that uppity broad knows it's there, 24/7/365.
    I agree, just the fact that they can do it will lead into the intimidation factor. We all know something as simple as an accusation and an arrest can lead to someone getting fired from their jobs and losing their livelyhood and can destroy a family. In todays society, setting things straight only makes page 27 and one paragraph in the paper (metaphorically since not many read the paper)..
     
    They are on a religious crusade. They will bring up charges. And people will have to hire lawyers, and go to court, and go through the whole charade... and one just has to get a judge who believes in the religious crusade to really make things miserable for defendants, who should not be defendants in the first place.
    Agreed.
     
    What makes you think that?

    You know how black people get harassed by the pigs all the time? Does it matter that driving while black isn't actually a crime? No, it doesn't. Driving while black will absolutely get you pulled over. Especially in the 'wrong' neighborhood. The racist scumbags want nothing more than an excuse.

    So why would pigs not hassle, arrest and vigorously question a woman who's suspiciously no longer pregnant when they're misogynistic arseholes to begin with? The whole point is to put their boot on her neck (metaphorically and/or literally) and make sure that uppity broad knows it's there, 24/7/365.
    Yes, I'm not disagreeing with any of that. My whole point is creating conditions where there's no legitimate reason for charging in the first place.

    That said, people get charged and exonerated all the time. It's often life altering, and sometimes not, depending on the circumstances. I'd say it's going to be traumatizing for a woman in nearly all cases because I don't know any women who has had an abortion or miscarriage take that lightly. I don't see the point in retraumatizing them all over again.

    In any case, women who are no longer pregnant should not be subject to possible charges unless there were some unusual or rare circumstances involved.
     
    Yes, I'm not disagreeing with any of that. My whole point is creating conditions where there's no legitimate reason for charging in the first place.

    That said, people get charged and exonerated all the time. It's often life altering, and sometimes not, depending on the circumstances. I'd say it's going to be traumatizing for a woman in nearly all cases because I don't know any women who has had an abortion or miscarriage take that lightly. I don't see the point in retraumatizing them all over again.

    In any case, women who are no longer pregnant should not be subject to possible charges unless there were some unusual or rare circumstances involved.

    It's not about just the charges. It's about being unjustly investigated in the first place.
     
    No doubt. Most don't go around advertising it, certainly. I've had numerous conversations with a pretty good number of women and known some who have gotten abortions. Generally, if you're in a family that is religious and has strong opinions about abortion, they're much less likely to share that they've had an abortion. It's definitely a sensitive issue and for some, the topic opens old wounds, so I've always tried to be cognizant of that when talking to them. Lots of grace and just acknowledging the difficult decisions made.
    It's quite possible that someone in your family has gotten an abortion without your knowledge. I don't know anyone in my family that has gotten an abortion either, but I wouldn't be shocked if one of my sisters, cousins, nieces or aunts had gotten one secretly. I do know a couple of women that have gotten abortions, and I don't know if anyone besides me knows about it. I know that I've never told anyone. I think abortions are such an extremely personal and emotionally traumatic act, that women generally don't want anyone to know. It does require tremendous grace.
     
    It's quite possible that someone in your family has gotten an abortion without your knowledge. I don't know anyone in my family that has gotten an abortion either, but I wouldn't be shocked if one of my sisters, cousins, nieces or aunts had gotten one secretly. I do know a couple of women that have gotten abortions, and I don't know if anyone besides me knows about it. I know that I've never told anyone. I think abortions are such an extremely personal and emotionally traumatic act, that women generally don't want anyone to know. It does require tremendous grace.
    Certainly. That said, with my family, we've had those discussions in the past and my wife, 2 girls, mom and wife's mom have all had that conversation before. I'd probably attribute that to my role as a former minister and that they know there will be no judgement from me regarding abortion.

    There's no way to know for sure, but we all trust each other and we've all had deeply personal discussions on the topic. I wouldn't be shocked either, but from our discussions, I'd say it's unlikely. I wouldn't think any less of them if they had gotten an abortion.

    Tremendous grace indeed.
     
    My daugther got an abortion in week 19 and the child was very much wanted. But unfortunately he had a severe defect that would have caused death within 12 hours if he even made it that far. Both my daughter and her husband was devestated. She was lucky however - she got pregnant with my now 7 yo granddaughter less than 3 months later.

    If she have had to carry to term, not only would she have gone through months of agony, but she might also have lost her ability to bear children all together.. I don't understand the laws in certain part of the US. They are cruel and in some cases lifethreatning.
     
    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.
    I think you missed my point. A person doesn't have to be charged to be traumatized and victimized by law enforcement. It's not enough that they might not be charged. The test should not be allowed to happen at all, because it has no scientific basis.

    If the test is done, law enforcement can use the test to harass and traumatize a woman who had a miscarriage and that has in fact happened. The fact that women might not be charged or convicted doesn't make using the test okay. Laws need to be enacted to prevent the use of the test.
     
    This is outrageous if the science doesn't exist to support it. Noone should go to jail based on anything that isn't proven scientifically. It should be very simple to determine the validity of this test by testing babies born at hospitals that were dead at birth or died shortly after birth. The hardest part will be to get permission from parents to test their baby's lungs. The government should commission a study of this test.
     
    This is outrageous if the science doesn't exist to support it. Noone should go to jail based on anything that isn't proven scientifically. It should be very simple to determine the validity of this test by testing babies born at hospitals that were dead at birth or died shortly after birth. The hardest part will be to get permission from parents to test their baby's lungs. The government should commission a study of this test.
    but the same ones are the ones who would love to use Lie Detector Test against someone, knowing how inaccurate it is and is a tech from the 1920s that hasn't changed since it was invented. They don't actually care about the truth only the narrative that seems like truth.
     
    I think you missed my point. A person doesn't have to be charged to be traumatized and victimized by law enforcement. It's not enough that they might not be charged. The test should not be allowed to happen at all, because it has no scientific basis.

    If the test is done, law enforcement can use the test to harass and traumatize a woman who had a miscarriage and that has in fact happened. The fact that women might not be charged or convicted doesn't make using the test okay. Laws need to be enacted to prevent the use of the test.
    Agreed. I'm just saying that I would hope the courts don't accept those tests as valid evidence, which would discourage the use of the tests to begin with.
     

    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