“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stepping back: is anyone honestly shocked by this? I’m not. Are people really surprised by the apparent majority opinion, or Roberts getting infuriated by the leak? None of this can be called surprising in the truest sense of the word, right?

I am not shocked. This outcome was obvious the night of November 8, 2016. That's the night I grieved for the end of Roe. v. Wade because it was obvious that it would be the end.

And pay attention to who is "infuriated" by the leak. It's theater by the Right to make this about the "leaker" who is clearly also from the Right.

My guess is the Roberts investigation will come up inconclusive, but it would be really awesome if they actually were able to pin Alito or one of the other GOP justices with doing it.

It was totally Ginni.

Why It will just make the right even more rabid and not do a damn thing.
Now if Justice is could be impeached and we had Congress with balls enough to do so

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So no response on what if the woman wants to give up full custody of the embryo. I feel that The father should have to pay to incubate it somewhere, whether that be a medical lab or a another woman, a surrogate whoever they want. So instead of terminating the pregnancy it can just be moved somewhere else at his expense.

I feel like it should be surgically implanted in Samuel Alito.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has a decision ever been leaked like this before? Seems kind of shocking this would happen. The leak, i mean, not the decisoin.

Probably a SC liberal law clerk for sure. To stir up trouble and get judges threatened.

Informed speculation on Twitter was a sotomayor clerk

NO surprise there

From NYT today:

“I would be wary of jumping to a conclusion that the leaker is necessarily someone who opposes overturning Roe v. Wade,” said Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine.

Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said the source was probably trying to increase the price of switching positions.

“In terms of who leaked it and why, it seems much more likely to me that it comes from the right in response to an actual or threatened defection by one of the five who voted to overturn Roe,” he said. “Leaking this early draft makes that more costly for a defector because now people will think that they changed their vote after the leak in response to public outrage.”

Professor Hasen said there was another benefit to the right from the disclosure of the draft opinion.

“This kind of leak could in fact help the likely future majority overturning Roe if it deflects the conversation to the question of Supreme Court secrecy and the danger of leaks to the legitimacy of the process,” he said. “That’s better than a conversation about the potential illegitimacy of overturning longstanding precedent allowing reproductive choice. It also could be intended to soften the blow by signaling to everyone the earthquake to come.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/03/us/politics/supreme-court-leak-roe-v-wade-abortion.html?name=styln-abortion-us®ion=TOP_BANNER&block=storyline_menu_recirc&action=click&pgtype=LegacyCollection&variant=show&is_new=false

It could be the Russians for all we know. After all, who would be an easier target that 9 almost octogenarians and their " old school " ways of doing things

My personal vote is it was the night watchman/ or even female security guard who lifted it off of someone's desk or out of their " Drafts trash can"- 2nd time in 50 years maybe the an AA person ( referencing the Watergate night watchman) has done their best to SAVE America

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So no response on what if the woman wants to give up full custody of the embryo. I feel that The father should have to pay to incubate it somewhere, whether that be a medical lab or a another woman, a surrogate whoever they want. So instead of terminating the pregnancy it can just be moved somewhere else at his expense.

I feel like it should be surgically implanted in Samuel Alito.

And if is done forceably by a relative and he objects, Clarence and Amy and Neal can just explain that sorry but there are no exceptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks again RBG!

I mean, she's my hero but, yes. I blame her.

Get stuffed.

This is all on the GOP and FedSoc extremists. RBG is not responsible for conservative depravity.

It is 100000% on her that she decided not to retire while Obama had the ability to appoint her replacement. Of course I blame the Republicans top and center for being awful, but it's hard to fault them for playing hard to get what they want.

Democrats' utter lack of ability to be strategic and smart about getting what we want - that I can get furious about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So no response on what if the woman wants to give up full custody of the embryo. I feel that The father should have to pay to incubate it somewhere, whether that be a medical lab or a another woman, a surrogate whoever they want. So instead of terminating the pregnancy it can just be moved somewhere else at his expense.

I feel like it should be surgically implanted in Samuel Alito.

THIS is a GREAT idea. If men want to " bring life into the world" they can undergo hormone therapy and have the fetus transferred to them to incubate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks again RBG!

No dont you dare put this on the shoulders of one woman. F you. There are a 1000 misjudgments and miscalculations and lies between her and this decision.

RBG couldnt retire under Obama because there wasnt even a vote for Garland. Mitch was never gonna let her be replaced by a dem president. Couldnt retire under Trump who got 3 justices in who are all partisan hacks after influencing one justice to retire. Two of them shouldnt have been considered at all.

No. You will not put this at HER feet.

False. Obama asked her to retire in 2013, before GOP took control of the Senate in 2014 elections for Jan 2015.

OH i didnt realize it was political and a president should ask someone to step down. no see this is the bullshit, even with this reasoning you cant lay this at her feet and hers alone. its like saying a pregnancy is alone a womans issue. roe v wade does not lie at the feet of rbg alone. if anything it lays at the feet of white women who voted for trump. f&&& them not her.

The fault clearly falls on the justices who vote to overturn Roe. Not RGB or McConnell.

NP. No, adults can and should be able to take a breath and tell the truth here. Yes, the lying liars ACB and Kavanaugh and the touchingly fake Sen. Collins and McConnell AND RGB and her apparent belief in her own immortality after multiple bouts of cancer and reaching her 75th birthday ALL played roles in this.

I’m devastated by this. Roe has been the prime target for a growing faction of Republicans since 1973, and the Reaganite nightmare of destroying federal governance and degrading all of its branches has been known. The disciplined, steady push to install crackpot liars into state Secretary of State roles by the GOP has been public. The Fed Soc list and disciplined, steady push to get their justices in at the fed level has been public. There has never - EVER - been an appetite in the Democratic Party upper apparatus to push back in as disciplined a manner, to use ALL tools to fight the fack back, and I’m sick to facking death of the retreat into protecting sacred cows like Her Holiness RGB, the legacy of Obama, and now, as Elie Mystal has written in his column for The Nation, the failure of appetite in Biden to make stacking the Court or otherwise putting up a damned street fight regarding Thomas/his corrupt wife as sacrosanct “we don’t talk about that!’ things. I just feel disgusted overall and no attempt to lionize the dead changes that for me.

+1000

[Anonymous]

I hope California taxes nonresident IVF services at 100% and uses the tax receipts to fund abortions. No different than hospitality taxes disproportionately paid by tourists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This will also lead to more women murdered by their partners. When he wants an abortion she can't have, murder will happen. It happens already, but will happen more. Will also increase domestic violence and prevent women from being able to leave.

And this while there are ONLY Economic COSTS to having a Baby- Huge ones

IF SCOTUS and GOP want American WOMEN to Bear more Children then give US:

18 months Paid maternity leave ( Like Europe and Canada)

Free Health Care ( like Europe and Canada)

Free or heavily subsidized Day Care like ... you got it ---- the rest of the developed world !!

And FREE college education for all of the BROODS of children

And maybe raise the min wage for these GFless, womanless, childless MEN who No Woman WANTS to Have a Baby FOR

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about IVF?. If too many eggs are fertilized, they typically abort some to give the others a higher chance of surviving as well as the mother. This would not be allowed now

IVF is against catholic church teaching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about IVF?. If too many eggs are fertilized, they typically abort some to give the others a higher chance of surviving as well as the mother. This would not be allowed now

IVF is against catholic church teaching.

And religion should totally be taken into account when deciding laws

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So no response on what if the woman wants to give up full custody of the embryo. I feel that The father should have to pay to incubate it somewhere, whether that be a medical lab or a another woman, a surrogate whoever they want. So instead of terminating the pregnancy it can just be moved somewhere else at his expense.

I feel like it should be surgically implanted in Samuel Alito.

THIS is a GREAT idea. If men want to " bring life into the world" they can undergo hormone therapy and have the fetus transferred to them to incubate

The right not to have a fetus forcibly implanted in your body is certainly not "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about IVF?. If too many eggs are fertilized, they typically abort some to give the others a higher chance of surviving as well as the mother. This would not be allowed now

IVF is against catholic church teaching.

No " they" don't. IVF protocols call for limiting the number of implants to the number that a woman can safely carry to term- usually 3.

They rest are frozen and some of my VERY Catholic Friends underwent IVF and , in the end, they donated their non-implanted Embryos so other infertile ( and yes RICH ) people could have the chance to have a baby

There is a diminished birth rate in this country, but the SOLUTION for THAT is NOT compelling women to continue with a pregnancy for a man that they DO NOT Love, Do NOT want to have a Baby with ( its their DNA they are mixing or NOT - their choice about their legacy)

If you want more educated, smart , talented and financially independent women , who have the right to Birth Control , to HAVE YOUR BABY- Get a better Education ( BS/BA, Masters or PhD ) , Get a high paying job, exercise and learn how to properly satisfy a WOMAN in Bed

[Anonymous]

How long until some RWNJ introduces a bill to force frozen embryos to be transferred into someone's womb instead of languishing in a freezer or being discarded?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about IVF?. If too many eggs are fertilized, they typically abort some to give the others a higher chance of surviving as well as the mother. This would not be allowed now

IVF is against catholic church teaching.

Which is totally ignored by millions of catholics.