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

[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Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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.

 

[wardorican]

Make them stop being stupid:

So, if they attempt to re-implant it to the uterus, which will 100% fail, it's not an abortion, right? It's a failed procedure to save the baby. It's semantics.

 

[SystemShock]

What is Plan B? I'm not familiar with that.

Morning after pill.

 

[SystemShock]

I wonder what'll be the English word for burka, and if they'll come in designer colors..

 

[SamAndreas]

Morning after pill.

Which is confusing in and of itself because in reality it's actually a hand full of pills.

 

[MT15]

 

[MT15]

So, if they attempt to re-implant it to the uterus, which will 100% fail, it's not an abortion, right? It's a failed procedure to save the baby. It's semantics.

There is zero procedure to implant the embryo into the uterus. Doesn’t work. I suppose we should just muck around with the woman‘s internal organs though to prove an asinine, evil point.

 

[bird]

Ok.

Caveat up front: I have not read the document as of now. I probably will when I am determined to get through the slop.

That being said allegedly Alito, the idiot, said that abortion is not in the constitution.

Know what else isn’t in the constitution?

The internet
Plane travel
Train travel
Car travel
Cancer treatments
HIPAA
Telephones
Cell phones
Nuclear power
Electric power generation
Space travel
Organ transplants
AIDS treatments
Etc ad nauseum ad infinitum

The constitution forbids two laws: bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.

Any SCOTUS decision is of necessity a political opinion based upon the biases of the justices. Yes, many times they can find supportive laws or cases to justify their decision but the actual reality is this: NOTHING BEYOND THE TWO LAWS THE DOCUMENT FORBIDS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Jefferson even admitted to rights could be subject to change and indeed we have seen restrictions on speech and assembly just to name two.

For me, this is a fourth amendment issue. The right of individuals to be secure in their persons.

 

[DaveXA]

Morning after pill.

Ahh, ok, I'd never heard that before. I don't understand people's objection to the morning after pill or any of the early stage stuff. Feels more like conventional birth control than abortion to me. But idk. I got snipped, so wife and I don't have to worry about it, heh.

 

[DaveXA]

I really don't think people will tolerate a national ban. If there's a way to ruin the party, that will do it.

 

[superchuck500]

And what's the burden of proof? like, how do you prove someone someone had an egg fertilized, and then they took something that didn't allow it to attach?

Like, a full on abortion, ok, you can prove. A morning after pill ending a fertilization is very different.

“Technically what you did is murder - but don’t worry they can’t prove it” isn’t the most persuasive strategy.

 

[Taurus]

One thread of this that I’m interested to see if this comes to pass and the state houses start getting aggressive with these highly punitive laws - is whether there’s any resistance from the less radical, pro-business wing of the GOP. Yes they have been run out through the primaries but I think they still exist and the business interests at the state level are more powerful.

But with an aggressive law that makes a fertilized egg a person and subjects pregnant women (who might not even know they’re pregnant) to criminal liability even murder for things like Plan B or in cases of rape or life threatening pregnancies, is the state going to be able to recruit new business? Is the large corporation going to build a new facility there? Will executives and other recruited classes be willing to relocate there with their families with girls? Will young women choose to go to college or graduate or trade schools there? Will your own young women residents leave (go to college elsewhere) as soon as they are able? Will the state be able to attract or retain national events like NCAA tournament or similar?

I think the answer to many of these questions will be no.

It’s one thing to take a pro-life stance and outlaw abortion in your state. But I think these laws (LA’s bill for example) can get so overzealous and punitive that they can bring a whole package of adverse consequences, mainly to business and the kind of activity a state needs to thrive. I’m very curious to see how the factions line up on these kinds of laws, LA looking like an obvious test case. Louisiana does indeed have interests that sometimes align to block the really extreme proposals.

They want people to leave. They *want* businesses to stay away. The whole idea is to cull the state population until only far-right, true-red Republicans remain. The Census is over, the lines are fixed for the next decade. NY and Cali aren't getting any more Representatives, nor any more EC votes, Alabama and Texas aren't getting any fewer.
If they can drive away enough progressives and moderates, those states will be fully-owned GOP subsidiaries.

 

[Optimus Prime]

What they said at their confirmation hearings
=======================

WASHINGTON (AP) — In one form or another, every Supreme Court nominee is asked during Senate hearings about his or her views of the Roe v. Wade abortion rights ruling that has stood for a half century.

Now, a draft opinion obtained by Politico suggests that a majority of the court is prepared to strike down the landmark 1973 decision, leaving it to the states to determine a woman’s ability to get an abortion.

A look at how the Republican-nominated justices, now a 6-3 majority, responded when asked by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for their views on the case:

AMY CONEY BARRETT, 2020:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, then the top Democrat on the committee, asked Barrett: “So the question comes, what happens? Will this justice support a law that has substantial precedent now? Would you commit yourself on whether you would or would not?”

“Senator, what I will commit is that I will obey all the rules of stare decisis,” Barrett replied, referring to the doctrine of courts giving weight to precedent when making their decisions.

Barrett went on to say that she would do that for “any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I’ll follow the law.“

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., asked Barrett whether she viewed Roe v. Wade as a “super precedent.” Barrett replied that the way the term is used in “scholarship” and the way she had used it in an article was to define cases so well settled that people do not seriously push for its overruling.

“And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category,”Barrett said.

___

BRETT KAVANAUGH, 2018: It was Feinstein who also asked Kavanaugh, “What would you say your position today is on a woman’s right to choose?”

“As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. By ‘it,’ I mean Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. They have been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent, which itself is an important factor to remember,” Kavanaugh said.

Casey was a 1992 decision that reaffirmed a constitutional right to abortion services…….

What GOP-nominated justices said about Roe to Senate panel

WASHINGTON (AP) — In one form or another, every Supreme Court nominee is asked during Senate hearings about his or her views of the Roe v.

apnews.com

 

[brandon]

Which is confusing in and of itself because in reality it's actually a hand full of pills.

Not for a long time.

Plan B One‑Step is one pill that you place in your mouth and swallow, preferably with water.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Yes, this is the REAL reason it was leaked
============================

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell has a theory on just about everything and now believes that the leaked Supreme Court opinion on the court voting to overturn Roe v. Wade was all done to derail his efforts in reversing the 2020 election results.

“I was doing an event, me and Kari Lake, in Arizona, and two hours before the event, all of a sudden news come in that it leaked out from the Supreme Court. What kind of timing is that. You follow me. So that gets the news instead of more and more evidence and more stuff piling on of what happened in the 2020 election,” Lindell told the MAGA-loving YouTube channel Right Side Broadcasting Network.

“It’s planned... they are trying to out mark it.” Speaking to The Daily Beast on Friday afternoon, the pillow maven backtracked and said that “it’s very suspicious, very suspicious” that the leak hit the news “two hours” before the launch of the debunked voter fraud movie 2000 Mules, produced out by pro-Trump pundit Dinesh D’Souza.

“I believe it was leaked on purpose because [sic] to deflect off of [the movie] 2000 Mules,” he added…….

MyPillow Guy Suggests SCOTUS Leak Was Done to Sabotage Him Specifically

The whole ordeal is all “very suspicious, very suspicious” to the pillow tycoon.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[superchuck500]

They want people to leave. They *want* businesses to stay away. The whole idea is to cull the state population until only far-right, true-red Republicans remain. The Census is over, the lines are fixed for the next decade. NY and Cali aren't getting any more Representatives, nor any more EC votes, Alabama and Texas aren't getting any fewer.
If they can drive away enough progressives and moderates, those states will be fully-owned GOP subsidiaries.

The populist reactionary base might but I don’t think it’s monolithic like that in many states. There are elements of the GOP that want business to thrive, that believe in the power of a strong economy to lift the whole state with jobs, tax base, etc. I don’t think they’re just gonna sit back and let that happen.

That’s precisely my interest - look at what happened in North Carolina when they passed the “bathroom bill” that required people to use the bathroom of their birth-assigned gender. The NCAA left. The ACC left. Large companies announced they were reconsidering their plans to expand in NC. Support for the law quickly diminished to its base as more sensible elements joined to repeal it.

 

[DaveXA]

Yes, this is the REAL reason it was leaked
============================

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell has a theory on just about everything and now believes that the leaked Supreme Court opinion on the court voting to overturn Roe v. Wade was all done to derail his efforts in reversing the 2020 election results.

“I was doing an event, me and Kari Lake, in Arizona, and two hours before the event, all of a sudden news come in that it leaked out from the Supreme Court. What kind of timing is that. You follow me. So that gets the news instead of more and more evidence and more stuff piling on of what happened in the 2020 election,” Lindell told the MAGA-loving YouTube channel Right Side Broadcasting Network.

“It’s planned... they are trying to out mark it.” Speaking to The Daily Beast on Friday afternoon, the pillow maven backtracked and said that “it’s very suspicious, very suspicious” that the leak hit the news “two hours” before the launch of the debunked voter fraud movie 2000 Mules, produced out by pro-Trump pundit Dinesh D’Souza.

“I believe it was leaked on purpose because [sic] to deflect off of [the movie] 2000 Mules,” he added…….

MyPillow Guy Suggests SCOTUS Leak Was Done to Sabotage Him Specifically

The whole ordeal is all “very suspicious, very suspicious” to the pillow tycoon.

www.thedailybeast.com

Who even listens to that loon anymore? When he's talking, I just move on to the next thing.

 

[DaveXA]

The populist reactionary base might but I don’t think it’s monolithic like that in many states. There are elements of the GOP that want business to thrive, that believe in the power of a strong economy to lift the whole state with jobs, tax base, etc. I don’t think they’re just gonna sit back and let that happen.

That’s precisely my interest - look at what happened in North Carolina when they passed the “bathroom bill” that required people to use the bathroom of their birth-assigned gender. The NCAA left. The ACC left. Large companies announced they were reconsidering their plans to expand in NC. Support for the law quickly diminished to its base as more sensible elements joined to repeal it.

Yeah, I think people are going to vote with their dollars first, and if that doesn't work, then with their feet. This is going to be a loser issue for the Republicans. There are platform views that would be much better suited for winning elections.

Also, there is a significant chunk of the party who are pro-choice, and the party can't afford a split before the 22 elections if they're going to gain a majority in either house of Congress.

 

[superchuck500]

Yeah, I think people are going to vote with their dollars first, and if that doesn't work, then with their feet. This is going to be a loser issue for the Republicans. There are platform views that would be much better suited for winning elections.

Also, there is a significant chunk of the party who are pro-choice, and the party can't afford a split before the 22 elections if they're going to gain a majority in either house of Congress.

I don’t see them supporting some kind of national law so I think they’re happy to leave it to the state houses - I don’t think that position (that the Dobbs case is rightly decided and it should be left to the states) will be that risky for the federal representative candidates. It’s going to be on the various state efforts where the challenges and risk are going to most relevant.