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Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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

 

[CrowFlies]

Google is allowing employees to relocate out of abortion ban states.

Disney/Facebook/Netflix are paying for employees to travel for abortions.

well ya know, thats the only thing capitalizm pays attention to is more of it.
make a big spash over "helping" and the net sales rise!

i mean...thx and all and keep the personal info...somewhere.
they might want to STAND UP SPEAK OUT TO THE POLS WHO DID THIS OR SUPPORT
IT IN ANY WAY.
im sure thats asking too much since theyd still vote frump.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Interesting read and we can only hope
=============================
……With that caveat in place, consider polling released by Gallup earlier this month. It found that, for the first time since 1996, more voters say they will only vote for a candidate who supports access to abortion than say they will only vote for one who opposes such access.

What’s more, the percentage saying they’ll only vote for a pro-abortion candidate is higher than the percentage saying they’d only vote for an abortion opponent in any previous poll.


Other polling allows us to further read the tea leaves, as The Washington Post’s Scott Clement did Friday morning. In March, polling from the Kaiser Family Foundation determined that about half of Americans would feel “sad” or “angry” about a repeal of Roe.

That included 7 in 10 Democrats who anticipated feeling angry — suggesting that they might then seek some political response.

Perhaps more interesting in that poll, as CNN’s Ariel Edwards-Levy pointed out, many residents of states with “trigger” laws — legislation that bans abortion immediately upon Roe being overturned — didn’t know they lived in such states. And why would they? These were “what if” laws for something that seemed only like a fairly remote possibility for a long time.

Forty-five percent of women ages 18 to 49 in states with “trigger” laws didn’t know those laws existed when KFF asked. Learning that the laws governing their ability to get an abortion had suddenly changed might be expected to be jarring.


Fifty-six percent of women in that age group nationally, incidentally, reported that they would be angry if Roe fell.


In CNN’s polling, conducted in January, most Americans reported knowing someone who’d had an abortion. Six in 10 Democrats said someone close to them had undergone the procedure; 7 in 10 Republicans did as well.

This is a reflection of something that, in the years since Roe was decided, had become common — and now would in many places be unavailable…..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/voters-may-be-lot-angrier-about-roes-repeal-than-right-assumes/

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

That seems pretty long. I think it can be done in 10 years. May be wishful thinking, idk.

Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are in their early 50's. They aren't going anywhere for at least two decades. Alito and Thomas are in their early 70's with no signs of any health problems. Keeping in mind that in this environment no Justice would willingly step down while someone from the opposing party was the President then that's where the 20 year approximation comes from. And that's assuming the Democrats can win the Presidency with the stunts the GOP is pulling on the elections front. The Supreme Court is no longer a non-political branch.

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Perhaps one of the lawyers can explain the actual ruling to me a bit better. As I understand it, the ruling wasn't over the hierarchical rankings of rights between a fetus and woman, with the court ruling that the fetus is a human with Constitutional rights, but rather that since abortion is not a specifically enumerated Constitutional right that the states can legislate against various things you can do with your own body that aren't specifically protected by the Constitution. Is that correct?

So, basically, the Court is saying that states can ban things like hair transplant surgery, breast augmentation, ear piercings, things like that?

I want to reiterate again, that every law and custom we have in this country recognizes that rights and responsibilities begin at birth, not conception. We don't sell life insurance on fetuses or zygotes. We don't give dependent tax breaks for them either.

 

[Saintamaniac]

I want to reiterate again, that every law and custom we have in this country recognizes that rights and responsibilities begin at birth, not conception. We don't sell life insurance on fetuses or zygotes. We don't give dependent tax breaks for them either.

UTJ,
I just wanted to save the trouble and beat @Farb to the punch. They don't sell life insurance on dogs neither. You don't get dependent tax breaks for dogs or cats either.

 

[MT15]

This thread is important, it’s long, but well worth the read. Taking away the right to an abortion is simply an attempt to control women. Has nothing to do with anything else. Warning for the squeamish, it’s in the vein of Jonathan Swift.

 

[MT15]

 

[brandon]

You say you don't see Christians as a monolithic, but your words betray that. I'll acknowledge that I'm not a typical Christian, but I'm also hardly the only one, and I don't think Christians like me are in the extreme minority. I do wish there were more of them though.

This will probably surprise a lot of people, but I’m in church every Sunday. I serve as a musician and production coordinator for my church, and am one of the higher-level volunteer “leaders”. I know a couple of other pretty far-left liberals in my church, as well as some full on Trumpers, but it’s a pretty good “come as you are” place that tries to unify all sorts of different people on what Christianity is supposed to be about.

I’d say the church that I go to is generally right of center on most issues, but they for the most part stay out of politics entirely, which is right where I want my church to be.

 

[Bolo]

Not surprised this happened. I see both sides of the abortion debate. I've been pro-choice up to a reasonable time. I don't think you should be able to abort past a certain time but I think ample time needed to be given. Some states were advocating for like 6 week limits and I'm willing to bet a lot of women probably don't even know they're pregnant 6 weeks in and by that time, it would be too late.

I also understand the hypocrisy of "My body, my choice" though. Modern Women have never had full control over what they do with their bodies. If a woman decides to sell her body for sex, she gets arrested, punished. So there has always been limits on what women can and cannot do with their bodies. Though, I fully support sex workers and look to other countries that have legalized prostitution and it didn't bring an end to their society or usher in an age of degeneracy which the right would complain about if it were to happen in this country.

As for Louisiana trigger laws, its probably just going to accelerate younger people to move out of state. We have major quality of life issues plaguing the state as it already was and a lot of the younger generations aren't leaning left or right compared to the older generations. I once again have to go back to just how poor the wages are across this state compared to others, if people were paid better, and quality of life was improved instead of our state constantly regressing, that would have also limited the number of abortions.

 

[Heathen]

Really don't want to turn this thread in another direction - so I'll make a few statements and leave it be:

There was a statement made earlier that this ruling and the abortion issue at large really had nothing to do with religion. That couldn't be further from the truth.
In a country literally founded on moral precepts defined through, primarily, the lens of Christianity - is it truthful to say there is no correlation?

In the Bible, God's literal punishment in the FIRST book of the Bible against Eve was afflicted pain in her reproductive organs for eating from a tree - as well as a declaration that man should rule over her:

Genesis 3:16, "To the woman he [God] said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

And it doesn't stop there. The Bible is chock full of sexist literature - and paints a picture of how women were treated AND simultaneously taken as how they should be treated in some sense throughout history thereafter as a 'higher power' is invoked. Women are largely painted as promiscuous beings who must be reigned in. Sound familiar? It should, because man was the editor. Now of course, thankfully - we've moved off of a lot of these barbaric rituals and lessons - but much of the premise of 'men must control women' influences policy all across the globe to this day.

To think that religion has had nothing or little to do with this ruling is mind-numbingly naive and akin to purposefully ignoring history...Does religion also have nothing to do with the restrictions on women's dress and behavior in Saudi Arabia, for example? Yes, it is all about control. Control that is MASSIVELY influenced by a 'holy' system of control set up by man to enforce pre-existing sexist stereotypes.

 

[MT15]

There is probably going to be a lot of this. From a pure productivity standpoint, they have far more incentive to keep the women in their work force child free.

If these companies were mandating abortion services you would have a better point, but they’re not. Nobody is. Having these policies will never stop a woman who wants to have a child from having one. This is not a good take, IMO.

 

[SFIDC3]

I said I'd be surprised if they did. But that was before I had even heard of this case. I'm not shocked, but still somewhat surprised that it came this quickly.

I do think if the country wants abortion access legalized across the country, it needs to be codified into law. Won't happen in this iteration of Congress. Maybe this changes the narrative in the elections this fall. We'll see.

Many of us aren’t surprised…at all….this is what happens when you put religious right wing zealots on the Court…f the will of the people, we are doing what we want….

They pedaled the questions - they said it was "settled law" and the like. They strongly suggested that means they wouldn't overturn it. But they never said they wouldn't overturn it.

I think they flat out lied …..one could argue that it is more nuanced than that….i think that argument falls flat on its face….I wouldn’t trust any of them to be the town dog catcher….and to be completely honest I think it is entirely fair that for every woman who dies as a result of this BS that one of them should….just more than a little angry here….

 

[MT15]

 

[SFIDC3]

The Christianity that I described is the prevailing one that has defined and shaped this nation. Meek, sweet Christianity hasn’t been a firewall along the way. Either it’s been complicit with the ugliness I highlighted, or powerless against it.

Yup….it’s been weaponized and there is no going back….

Well, I disagree that there is a conflict between Chritianity and liberty. To each his own I guess.

Like I’ve said before Dave, you are a good guy and if there were more Christians like you this country would be a better place….but there aren’t….and Christianity or any other religion has no business in the state/government…..I detest organized religion….I also think you are hopelessly naive as to what is happening right now…..

 

[superchuck500]

If these companies were mandating abortion services you would have a better point, but they’re not. Nobody is. Having these policies will never stop a woman who wants to have a child from having one. This is not a good take, IMO.

I don’t think that’s what he was saying.

 

[DaveXA]

Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are in their early 50's. They aren't going anywhere for at least two decades. Alito and Thomas are in their early 70's with no signs of any health problems. Keeping in mind that in this environment no Justice would willingly step down while someone from the opposing party was the President then that's where the 20 year approximation comes from. And that's assuming the Democrats can win the Presidency with the stunts the GOP is pulling on the elections front. The Supreme Court is no longer a non-political branch.

I was thinking there have been rumblings that Thomas is possibly going to be the next justice to retire. I hope he does sooner than later. Good points tho.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

...since abortion is not a specifically enumerated Constitutional right that the states can legislate against various things you can do with your own body that aren't specifically protected by the Constitution. Is that correct?

Yes. Roe was premised on rights of privacy/bodily autonomy the Warren Court found in the Substantive Due Process -- they aren't explicitly enumerated in the Constitution (like the First and Second Amendments) but are derived by reading in between the lines -- basically a fiat of judicial interpretation. So a fiat of judicial interpretation can get rid of it.