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Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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

 

[superchuck500]

I can certainly think of areas where there are competing or mutual rights to the limits of privacy and personal rights, sure. The Roe and Casey decision set out such a limit in the viability of the fetus. But it seems here that Alito and the other conservatives are having to say that the woman has no such rights to privacy and personal autonomy when it comes to pregnancy in order to out allow states to totally ban it. Or that the federal government can acknowledge any such rights in the context of the law.



I guess my question would be where in the original constitution text does it grant such competing rights to the fetus before birth?

I think your questions are valuable and this is where the discussion needs to go, but I can't really respond because it seems to require getting into defending the decision that (a) I don't agree with and (b) I haven't really digested, and I doubt that many really have in any truly meaningful way.

I was only trying to frame context as I see it (which can certainly be rebutted).

 

[MT15]

Here is another view that echoes Rob’s

 

[J-DONK]

I guess my question would be where in the original constitutions text does it grant such competing rights to the fetus before birth?

Abortion was legal in America, and before that in the British colonies. This is part of the debate pro-lifers will never want to have overall.

 

[nolaspe]

 

[Optimus Prime]

Do you know how different final opinions typically are from drafts?

 

[MT15]

According to legal people on TV, this looks to be in fairly final form. It was doubted that much would change on it, though it is possible. Also, it was written in February, so it’s possible there are changes already made or in the works.

 

[porculator]

Would this decision make it possible for states to ban forms of contraception?

I don't see how it wouldn't.

Maybe it's high time we let the stupid states be stupid and deal with the consequences themselves.

 

[superchuck500]

Here is another view that echoes Rob’s

I think Rob’s was only a genuine question for discussion whereas this tweet is a rhetorical warning. And it’s misreading the section that includes Obergefell - from which the Alito opinion says the abortion question is “sharply distinguishable”.

 

[superchuck500]

Oh look, Senator Collins is disappointed.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Abortion was legal in America, and before that in the British colonies. This is part of the debate pro-lifers will never want to have overall.

"Abortion Is Central to the History of Reproductive Health Care in America"

Abortion Is Central to the History of Reproductive Health Care in America​

These days, restrictions on abortion are being passed so often that it can be easy to forget abortion has been legal for much of American history.

Abortion: Solidly Rooted in America’s History​

Leaders didn’t outlaw abortion in America until the mid-1800s. From colonial days until those first laws, abortion was a regular part of life for women. Common law allowed abortion prior to “quickening” — an archaic term for fetal movement that usually happens after around four months of pregnancy.

Medical literature and newspapers in the late 1700s and early 1800s regularly referred to herbs and medications as abortion-inducing methods, since surgical procedures were rare. Reproductive care including abortion was unregulated in those days; it was provided by skilled midwives, nurses, and other unlicensed women’s health care providers. Midwives were trusted, legitimate medical professionals who provided essential reproductive health care.

Prior to the Civil War, white men were not generally involved in the kind of gynecological or obstetric, or OB/GYN, practices we know today. Half of the women who provided reproductive care were Black women, some of whom were enslaved; midwives also included Indigenous and white women, according to an essay by Michele Goodwin, a law professor at the University of California-Irvine.

Rules Banning Abortion for Enslaved Black Women​

It is clear to see how deeply abortion bans are rooted in white supremacy and patriarchal strongholds when we look at the history of Black women in this country. The tradition of disregarding the humanity of Black people is part of more than 400 years of white supremacist systems in America. Although abortion was legal throughout the country until after the Civil War, there were different rules for enslaved Black women than for white women. Enslaved Black women were valuable property. They didn’t have the freedom to control their bodies, and slave owners prohibited them from having abortions.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction...tral-history-reproductive-health-care-america

 

[el caliente]

 

[superchuck500]

 

[RobF]

I'm not sure that metric supports that conclusion. Because in the context of "men telling women what to do with their bodies", the people, who are disproportionately men, doing the telling aren't the general population. Nor, that polling would indicate, are they entirely representative of it.

 

[Taurus]

I don't see how it wouldn't.

Maybe it's high time we let the stupid states be stupid and deal with the consequences themselves.

That's the plan.

What I'm seeing is a deliberate effort on the part of red states to be actively hostile to anyone who isn't with their pro-Trump, pro-authoritarian, pro-Red program. To drive them out into neighboring blue states.

Why? To ensure that current GOP strongholds remain so for the rest of time. The more people who can be convinced to leave, the greater the voting power of those who remain becomes. Red states will control the Senate and have a shot at the Presidency forever. With vigorous enough gerrymandering, supported by GOP state legislatures and a GOP SCOTUS, Republicans can wrangle control of the House, as well.

Dear Millennial and Gen-Z women: Remember that election in 2016? The one you were told repeatedly was the most important of your lives?
This is why.

On the plus side, we'll get to see tons of horrific TikTok videos of back-alley abortions gone wrong. So there's that.

 

[Taurus]

She's missing the point that every time you see Congress deal with women's health/rights/issues, it's a circle of old men making the decisions.

It's not "men" writ large, it's 'men with power'.

Who's passing these restrictive abortion laws? Men
Who claims that women can "shut it down" in cases of rape? Men

 

[MT15]

I think Rob’s was only a genuine question for discussion whereas this tweet is a rhetorical warning. And it’s misreading the section that includes Obergefell - from which the Alito opinion says the abortion question is “sharply distinguishable”.

I have listened to GOP politicians actively call for a re-examination of these other cases, so I’m not going to say this is not real. IMO it’s very real that all these other decisions will be questioned and prodded and I think I know how this court will rule.

Also, I am seeing a lot of conservative or semi-conservative people scoffing at the idea that

A. Rs will go after same-sex marriage, etc. and
B. That this SC would overturn it.

I’m sorry, but everyone thought that about Roe for over 50 years. These very justices, who have voted to overturn it called Roe “settled” during their confirmation hearings. So I think we who are worried about all our rights based on 14th should not be scoffed at. This isn’t about Chuck, to be clear, but rather people like the woman quoted by el above after reading her timeline.

And her point is just wrong - Taurus is right it’s definitely men with power telling women what is acceptable about their own bodies. And these men with power have no idea what they are doing. Not only the ”women‘s bodies have a way of shutting that down” but “if rape is inevitable sit back and enjoy it”, ectopic pregnancies can be treated without losing the embryo, and six weeks is plenty of time for women to make up their minds.

 

[Bolo]

This is why I can't stand "Old" mentality or "boomer" mentality as the kids would call it today. Instead of thinking big picture, a 1950's mindset is being presented here. Left out of the conversation is always the possibility of cheap, effective, male birth control options. If the idea is to limit abortions, this would be an effective way to stop unwanted pregnancies. If the woman has an "oopsie" moment due to forgetting to take her birth control, the male still has his own protection or vice versa if the male forgets his. In order for a kid to be born, both would have to drop their contraceptives to make it happen.

I don't know a single man who is sexually active that wouldn't take that pill if it existed. Now I assume if such a pill existed for men, conservatives would shame those men by saying they're "not real men" for taking it because they're "avoiding their god given responsibility to raise families."

But we can't have that, we can't for some reason have next level thinking using modern solutions to older problems. Investing into and offering the other half of the human race effective, safe, birth control technology would do more to prevent abortions than both sides screeching over the for or against issue that has literally us nowhere. You can't tell me we, as humans, aren't smart enough to make this a thing. While there is no perfect solution, its a far better approach than the one we have now.

 

[RobF]

I think Rob’s was only a genuine question for discussion whereas this tweet is a rhetorical warning. And it’s misreading the section that includes Obergefell - from which the Alito opinion says the abortion question is “sharply distinguishable”.

It was a genuine question on my part - and I haven't had a chance to read the leaked opinion yet - but I can certainly understand concern about other rights.

At the risk of over-simplifying, for any particular right, I think very broadly we'd have to consider:

1) What kind of movement there is to overturn those rights, and whether it's sufficient to attempt to do so at the state level.
2) If it is, and the attempt was challenged at the Supreme Court level, would the reasoning in this opinion represent a shift in the likelihood of the rights being upheld, in the context of the previous reasoning for those rights being previously established.

If, in terms of reasoning, a right was significantly dependent on a similar premise, then I think that would substantiate real concern. If - if - that's the case, I'm not sure how much weight a statement that abortion is "sharply distinguishable" in the Alito opinion would carry, given that I suspect it would come down to the application of the approach and reasoning rather than broader statements of that nature. And, sadly, what the desired outcome might be from what is clearly a substantially partisan Supreme Court now.