Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (2 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Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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.

 

[LA - L.A.]

No, I didn't. The point is, what you call christofascism, is not a subset of Christianity. It it the reason why Christianity spread across what we call the Western hemisphere. You can't have one without the other. Unlike Islam, Christianity has been forced from "the best heathen is a dead heathen" to "having a personal relation with Jesus" by the rise of secular humanism since the Age of Reason; it's just trying to go back to its roots.

Christofascism is still a subset of Christianity, because not all Christians engaged or are currently engaging in Christofascism. Not all Christians are the same just like not all Mexicans are the same.

 

[Optimus Prime]

The conservative supreme court justice Neil Gorsuch took just 10 minutes to approve without changes a 98-page draft of the opinion that would remove the federal right to abortion that had been guaranteed for nearly 50 years, the New York Times reported.

According to the paper, Samuel Alito, the author of the opinion in Dobbs v Jackson, the case that struck down Roe v Wade, from 1973, circulated his draft at 11.16am on 10 February 2022.

Citing two people who saw communications between the justices, the Times said: “After a justice shares an opinion inside the court, other members scrutinise it. Those in the majority can request revisions, sometimes as the price of their votes, sweating sentences or even words.

“But this time, despite the document’s length, Justice Neil M Gorsuch wrote back just 10 minutes later to say that he would sign on to the opinion and had no changes.”

Three other conservatives – Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh – signed on in the following days.

“None requested a single alteration,” the Times said. “The responses looked like a display of conservative force and discipline.”

In a statement to the Guardian, Caroline Ciccone, president of the watchdog group Accountable.US, said: “These revelations offer yet another example of the current supreme court plowing through usual guardrails and tossing precedent aside to deliver an extreme decision ultimately impacting millions of Americans.”……….

Justice Neil Gorsuch took 10 minutes to approve Dobbs abortion opinion – report

New York Times reports conservative supreme court justice had no changes to 98-page draft of opinion that removed right to abortion

www.theguardian.com

 

[DaveXA]

Christofascism is still a subset of Christianity, because not all Christians engaged or are currently engaging in Christofascism. Not all Christians are the same just like not all Mexicans are the same.

Agreed. The notion that Christofascists = Christians is patently absurd to me. I get why he makes the argument though, even if I don't agree with it.

 

[DaveXA]

The conservative supreme court justice Neil Gorsuch took just 10 minutes to approve without changes a 98-page draft of the opinion that would remove the federal right to abortion that had been guaranteed for nearly 50 years, the New York Times reported.

According to the paper, Samuel Alito, the author of the opinion in Dobbs v Jackson, the case that struck down Roe v Wade, from 1973, circulated his draft at 11.16am on 10 February 2022.

Citing two people who saw communications between the justices, the Times said: “After a justice shares an opinion inside the court, other members scrutinise it. Those in the majority can request revisions, sometimes as the price of their votes, sweating sentences or even words.

“But this time, despite the document’s length, Justice Neil M Gorsuch wrote back just 10 minutes later to say that he would sign on to the opinion and had no changes.”

Three other conservatives – Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh – signed on in the following days.

“None requested a single alteration,” the Times said. “The responses looked like a display of conservative force and discipline.”

In a statement to the Guardian, Caroline Ciccone, president of the watchdog group Accountable.US, said: “These revelations offer yet another example of the current supreme court plowing through usual guardrails and tossing precedent aside to deliver an extreme decision ultimately impacting millions of Americans.”……….

Justice Neil Gorsuch took 10 minutes to approve Dobbs abortion opinion – report

New York Times reports conservative supreme court justice had no changes to 98-page draft of opinion that removed right to abortion

www.theguardian.com

This mess has definitely eroded my trust/confidence in SCOTUS. Disappointing for sure.

 

[SystemShock]

Christofascism is still a subset of Christianity, because not all Christians engaged or are currently engaging in Christofascism. Not all Christians are the same just like not all Mexicans are the same.

Have you not read the Bible? In a sentence, the people who follow the immutable rules and worship the dear leader get to live, and the people who don't, they get punished and die. Sounds familiar?

Christians may not all be the same, but Christianity is, regardless of the many feel-good, catch-up-to-secular-humanism interpretations and apologetics that Christians come up with to justify their belief in that particular deity.

I don't know why you decided to choose Mexicans, but ok... "Mexican" isn't a doctrine with a holy Mexican book that tells you what you should/must do or not do according to the desires and wishes of a metaphysical deity to get to live forever in bliss.

 

[DaveXA]

Have you not read the Bible? In a sentence, the people who follow the immutable rules and worship the dear leader get to live, and the people who don't, they get punished and die. Sounds familiar?

I have, all of it, multiple times. Condensing it to a sentence like this is to leave an awful lot out. Contrary to popular belief/opinion, there's little cut and dried or simple about it. So maybe familiar, but also incomplete.

Christians may not all be the same, but Christianity is, regardless of the many feel-good, catch-up-to-secular-humanism interpretations and apologetics that Christians come up with to justify their belief in that particular deity.

I don't know why you decided to choose Mexicans, but ok... "Mexican" isn't a doctrine with a holy Mexican book that tells you what you should/must do or not do according to the desires and wishes of a metaphysical deity to get to live forever in bliss.

 

[Optimus Prime]

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio was in the throes of a bitter debate over abortion rights this fall when Brittany Watts, 21 weeks and 5 days pregnant, began passing thick blood clots.

The 33-year-old Watts, who had not shared the news of her pregnancy even with her family, made her first prenatal visit to a doctor’s office behind Mercy Health-St. Joseph’s Hospital in Warren, a working-class city about 60 miles (100 kilometers) southeast of Cleveland.

The doctor said that, while a fetal heartbeat was still present, Watts’ water had broken prematurely and the fetus she was carrying would not survive. He advised heading to the hospital to have her labor induced, so she could have what amounted to an abortion to deliver the nonviable fetus. Otherwise, she would face “significant risk” of death, according to records of her case.

That was a Tuesday in September. What followed was a harrowing three days entailing: multiple trips to the hospital; Watts miscarrying into, and then flushing and plunging, a toilet at her home; a police investigation of those actions; and Watts, who is Black, being charged with abuse of a corpse. That’s a fifth-degree felony punishable by up to a year in prison and a $2,500 fine.



Her case was sent last month to a grand jury. It has touched off a national firestorm over the treatment of pregnant women, and especially Black women, in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.

Civil rights attorney Benjamin Crumpelevated Watts’ plight in a post to X, formerly Twitter, and supporters have donated more than $100,000 through GoFundMe for her legal defense, medical bills and trauma counseling.…..

A Black woman was criminally charged after a miscarriage. It shows the perils of pregnancy post-Roe

A Black Ohio woman who miscarried in her bathroom has been charged with abuse of a corpse. Thirty-three-year-old Brittany Watts, of Warren, awaits grand jury action.

apnews.com

 

[SystemShock]

I have, all of it, multiple times. Condensing it to a sentence like this is to leave an awful lot out. Contrary to popular belief/opinion, there's little cut and dried or simple about it. So maybe familiar, but also incomplete.

Isn't the central theme of Christianity that Jesus is one's Lord and Savior, and that one achieves salvation and eternal life if one believes in him and obeys his commands? Doesn't the book of Revelations tell of the fate of those who do not believe in him?

Little cut and dried = apologetics.

 

[DaveXA]

Isn't the central theme of Christianity that Jesus is one's Lord and Savior, and that one achieves salvation and eternal life if one believes in him and obeys his commands? Doesn't the book of Revelations tell of the fate of those who do not believe in him?

Little cut and dried = apologetics.

Yes, but again, that's only part of the story. And there's debate even among Christians about what that all means. It's not much different from the debates people have on message boards like this. Ultimately, everyone has to come to their own conclusions about what they think and believe about things.

Anyway, we won't agree, and that's fine. I can disagree and still respect your opinion. It's all good.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Christians may not all be the same, but Christianity is....

This is objectively and demonstrably false. Christian bibles and beliefs are not all the same is not all the same. The are a lot of different Christian sects that have sustainability and significantly different interpretations of what the bible teaches.

There are several substantially and significantly different versions of the bible between different sects. The idea that all of Christianity follows the dogma you say they do is poppycock.

You're taking your interpretation of one version of the bible, King James would be my guess, and falsely asserting that all Christians follow the whichever version you are referencing and that they all interpret that version of the bible the same way you do.

Some Christians believe that as long as you accept Christ as your savior, you can commit all the heinous acts you can dream of and Christ will forgive you and grant you salvation. They quote passages from their bible of choice as proof of their belief.

Some Christians believe that no matter how much you profess accepting Christ as your savior, you will be judged by Christ on how you acted toward other people, including your enemies. They quote passages from their bible of choice as proof of their belief.

Those two dogmas are in direct opposition to each other. The first is tribal and fascists in nature. The second one is the opposite of fascist in nature.

The overwhelming majority of Christians that I know believe and act on the second one, not the first. So, not all Christians believe fascist things and engage in fascist behavior.

 

[SystemShock]

This is objectively and demonstrably false. Christian bibles and beliefs are not all the same is not all the same. The are a lot of different Christian sects that have sustainability and significantly different interpretations of what the bible teaches.

There are several substantially and significantly different versions of the bible between different sects. The idea that all of Christianity follows the dogma you say they do is poppycock.

You're taking your interpretation of one version of the bible, King James would be my guess, and falsely asserting that all Christians follow the whichever version you are referencing and that they all interpret that version of the bible the same way you do.

Some Christians believe that as long as you accept Christ as your savior, you can commit all the heinous acts you can dream of and Christ will forgive you and grant you salvation. They quote passages from their bible of choice as proof of their belief.

Some Christians believe that no matter how much you profess accepting Christ as your savior, you will be judged by Christ on how you acted toward other people, including your enemies. They quote passages from their bible of choice as proof of their belief.

Those two dogmas are in direct opposition to each other. The first is tribal and fascists in nature. The second one is the opposite of fascist in nature.

The overwhelming majority of Christians that I know believe and act on the second one, not the first. So, not all Christians believe fascist things and engage in fascist behavior.

James 2:17 vis a vis Acts 3:19, cool, but still, Christianity's main theme across all of its translations and interpretations is that you must worship and obey the rules of your Lord to be granted eternal life, or be punished and left for death.

How you interpret the rules is of no consequence to the supreme lord's Christianity rule book. Sure, many nitpick Bible passages to apologize for them, out of convenience, to catch up to the morality of secular humanism, to try to shoehorn scripture into the modern world/science, to conveniently accommodate certain behaviors, over rationalization, etc., but in the end, however you interpret the rules, the doctrine tell you that you have to answer to the ultimate authority, a supreme lord who'll judge you based on how much you believe in him and how well you follow his rules according to him and not how you interpret them, and that judgement, you'll get to live or die.

And that's the rule book. Then you have the actions of the main Christian churches, the Holy Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England, who spread Christianity through conquest, slavery, and oppression in half the world, for hundreds of years. And then you see what's happening in the U.S., with the 'Murican Taliban trying to take over everyone's life...

 

[DaveXA]

James 2:17 vis a vis Acts 3:19, cool, but still, Christianity's main theme across all of its translations and interpretations is that you must worship and obey the rules of your Lord to be granted eternal life, or be punished and left for death.

This is simply your opinion. Well, I mean, it really all is, but certainly this.

How you interpret the rules is of no consequence to the supreme lord's Christianity rule book.

Uh, no. Ultimately, whatever people believe about the book is based on their interpretation of said book.

Sure, many nitpick Bible passages to apologize for them, out of convenience, to catch up to the morality of secular humanism, to try to shoehorn scripture into the modern world/science, to conveniently accommodate certain behaviors, over rationalization, etc., but in the end, however you interpret the rules, the doctrine tell you that you have to answer to the ultimate authority, a supreme lord who'll judge you based on how much you believe in him and how well you follow his rules according to him and not how you interpret them, and that judgement, you'll get to live or die.

Your opinion, sure.

And that's the rule book. Then you have the actions of the main Christian churches, the Holy Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England, who spread Christianity through conquest, slavery, and oppression in half the world, for hundreds of years. And then you see what's happening in the U.S., with the 'Murican Taliban trying to take over everyone's life...

Certainly there are some. Fred Phelps and similar ilk who would have everyone do and act as they do. Then there's the rest of us who believe in live and let live and everyone's business is theirs alone, within legal limits of course.

 

[Dragon]

This reminds me of a flag I saw in an upper middle class neighborhood, when I was visiting family at Thanksgiving, that read: God, Guns and Trump. This pretty well captures the prevailing mindset in the place I grew up, which is the home district for Mike Johnson.

God and Guns in the same sentence makes so much sense! - NOT

 

[SystemShock]

This is simply your opinion. Well, I mean, it really all is, but certainly this.

My opinion? That Christianity's main theme across all of its translations and interpretations is that you must worship your Lord and obey his rules to be granted eternal life, or else be punished and left for death, is my opinion? Are you seriously telling me that's my opinion?

 

[DaveXA]

My opinion? That Christianity's main theme across all of its translations and interpretations is that you must worship your Lord and obey his rules to be granted eternal life, or else be punished and left for death, is my opinion? Are you seriously telling me that's my opinion?

Sigh...I said what I said. I'm ok with letting you have the last word.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Trials are underway in Britain for the first-ever male contraceptive pill. It’s a promising medication, one that puts more power in men’s hands to prevent unwanted pregnancy with high reliability and, so far, few reported side effects.

The trials seek to answer a basic medical question: is this drug safe and effective?

But the manufacturers are no doubt wondering about something else: will men take it?

The overwhelming share of responsibility for preventing pregnancy has always fallen on women. Throughout human history, women have gone to great lengths to prevent pregnancies they didn’t want, and end those they couldn’t prevent.

Safe and reliable contraceptive methods are, in the context of how long women have sought to interrupt conception, still incredibly new.

Measured by the lifespan of anyone reading this article, though, they are well established, and have for many decades been a normal part of life for millions of women around the world…….

Yet when it comes to reproduction – doing it, or preventing it – we have asked virtually nothing of men. For 75 years now, it’s been women’s bodies that have shouldered the burden of preventing pregnancies. It’s women who have set their alarms to take pills, gritted their teeth through the usually-unmedicated and often-brutal pain of IUD insertion, and sometimes dealt with the side effects of contraceptive hormones: mood swings, weight gain, bleeding, headaches, nausea, and more.

To be clear, many women experience no side effects at all, or only mild ones that dissipate quickly. But a lot of women have suffered through some serious discomfort because there simply weren’t other reliable options.

And many of us have wondered when, exactly, science would catch up with rapid gains in gender equality, and ask men to take on a fraction of the responsibility for planning families.

Yes, there are condoms. But that thousands-years-old technology – which, by the way, is not a male contraceptive, but rather a tool both parties use and that impacts both of their physical experience – has its limitations.……

Scientists are on the verge of a male birth-control pill. Will men take it? | Jill Filipovic

A male contraceptive is almost here – and it’ll be another test of whether heterosexual men are actually willing to share the responsibilities of adult life

www.theguardian.com

 

[Incumbent]

This could go in a number of threads but I'm going to add it here because of the broader conversation taking place in this thread.

James Talarico is a bright spot in Texas politics, and among those who are facing off against enormous challenges, fighting for a more promising future for Texas.

There is a religious war being waged in our country, and it threatens our democracy and the lives and well-being of millions of people.

Talarico gives a short primer here on the men who are reshaping the political landscape of Texas, which in turn, is part of the collective far right threats lining up against the United States. Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks are billionaires and pastors, buying influence, manipulating politicians, eroding public education and voting rights, and spreading messages of Christofascist domination to their congregations. Elected Republicans across the state are puppets for their wealthy masters.

Everything that Talarico highlights in this clip should be alarming to anybody who sincerely wants to see our nation strive towards a fuller realization of our core ideals of liberty and freedom. But I think most chilling is the belief held by Dunn and Wilks that only Christians have a right to serve in government. That speaks directly to the vision they have for Texas and, ultimately, the United States. We have lost too much ground in this fight already - the 2024 election results could very well be a deciding blow.

Texas theocrats are a home-grown threat to American democracy (Editorial)

Dan and Farris Wilks, and Tim Dunn, are the West Texas billionaires behind Attorney General Ken Paxton. Voters must stop their Christian nationalist push.

www.houstonchronicle.com

 

[LA - L.A.]

My opinion? That Christianity's main theme across all of its translations and interpretations is that you must worship your Lord and obey his rules to be granted eternal life, or else be punished and left for death, is my opinion? Are you seriously telling me that's my opinion?

Which versions of the bible have you actually read? Which denominations have you attended their ceremonies? Which denominations have you talked to their leaders about their Christian beliefs and interpretations of the bible?