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

[Anonymous]

Get ready for the hotlines reporting women and couples for possible abortions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

+1. “wards of the state”, you mean

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yes. "They" do.
I don't agree with them, but it is a fact that the Catholic church believes IVF is immoral, completely separate from the issue of embryos being used or not used. Your friends committed a sin in the eyes of their church.

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/reproductive-technology/begotten-not-made-a-catholic-view-of-reproductive-technology
"One reproductive technology which the Church has clearly and unequivocally judged to be immoral is in vitro fertilization or IVF."

[Anonymous]

I'm secretly hoping that Kavanaugh's wife is the leaker. God, that would be amazing.

[Anonymous]

Thanks to DNA technology, guys will be on the hook for all pregnancies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yes. "They" do.
I don't agree with them, but it is a fact that the Catholic church believes IVF is immoral, completely separate from the issue of embryos being used or not used. Your friends committed a sin in the eyes of their church.

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/reproductive-technology/begotten-not-made-a-catholic-view-of-reproductive-technology
"One reproductive technology which the Church has clearly and unequivocally judged to be immoral is in vitro fertilization or IVF."

They have no problem signing them up as catholics despite their objections to their very existence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

not protecting her- tired of women taking the blame for the actions or inactions of a majority of men.
trying to blame her for how we got here is reductive AND plays into misogyny
there are multiple comments of thanks RBG as if this lays at her feet alone and it is tiresome

+1 If Thurgood Marshall hadn’t retired Gore would have gotten his full recount and won, but no one gives him crap for it.

Lol. Marshall died 2 years after Thomas replaced him, around 7.5 years before Bush v Gore.

Also Gore didn't ask for a full recount (which he would have won). He asked for a partial recount (which he would have lost). Bush v Gore was a horrible decision but even if Gore had prevailed in court he would have lost in the recount (because he was trying to be cute and wanted only a partial recount).

[Anonymous]

Women need to start withholding sex from men—period. Vibrators are better anyway!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women need to start withholding sex from men—period. Vibrators are better anyway!

We should all go on strike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yes. "They" do.
I don't agree with them, but it is a fact that the Catholic church believes IVF is immoral, completely separate from the issue of embryos being used or not used. Your friends committed a sin in the eyes of their church.

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/reproductive-technology/begotten-not-made-a-catholic-view-of-reproductive-technology
"One reproductive technology which the Church has clearly and unequivocally judged to be immoral is in vitro fertilization or IVF."

Well, those " conceived in Sin" Triplet IVF babies were baptized by the Catholic Church, went to Catholic School where every priest welcomed them knowing they were IVF conceived, were confirmed and were married by a Catholic Priest

God helps those who HELP THEMSELVES

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Is this because all Republicans share one brain and have no original thoughts on their own?.
They do realize 60% of their base does not support the supreme Court decision.

[Anonymous]

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?

+1. I'm not sure why this is surprising to anyone. This has been widely forecasted this since the ACB confirmation. One would think that women's rights organizations and planned parenthood would have been mounting full-throated defenses of a women's right to choose. It appears they have been busy with other priorities.

[Anonymous]

If this has already been covered in the previous 71 pages, I apologize and please point me to the right page. I want to make sure that I am understanding what Alito's issue is. “The Supreme Court may only protect these rights, Alito says, if they are ‘deeply rooted’ in history because when they are not, they are "unenumerated rights." So Alito's claim is that the Supreme Court can only defend rights that existed in the 1700s?! That as a society we should not expect to grow beyond beliefs that are over 200 years old? I mean, I know that this is also what happens with the Second Amendment - we've developed guns that are far beyond the imaginations of our founding fathers but the argument is that a gun is a gun and therefore protected. But now issues like abortion and same-sex marriages, which was also referenced in the leaked document, are not to be protected rights because they weren't a major political or social issue in the 1700s?

[Anonymous]

Its all getting very Handmaids Tale. Abortion outlawed. Celebrities and the rich ordering custom order babies carried by less privileged women. I guess there's always Canada.