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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll believe it when it happens. This is more fear mongering. These sensational leaks come up periodically and then die down after no one is able to verify the claims.

Are you an idiot? This has never happened before that something from the SC has been leaked. Yes, you are an idiot.

The document has been confirmed as authentic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a lengthy opinion when all they have to say is “because the Catholic Church is against abortion.”

The catholic Church near me is dying a slow death. Hardly anyone there anymore. Gee I wonder why.

One might suggest that the Catholic Church is one of the most corrupt institutions in the West, ethically, morally and financially.

The Catholic church has caused more harm thn most wars. It isn't one of the most corrupt institutions but the most corrupt and immoral in world history.

[Anonymous]

Tip for anyone else nauseated by this coverage, on any or all sides: You can mute keywords in your social media settings ex. Roe, Wade, abortion, aborted, abortions, fetus. And you will no longer see any of this spam. I did the same when Meghan Markle was flooding my social media ex. Meghan, Markle, Harry, Duchess, Sussex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In some face, it is your religious belief to follow medical advice such as in Orthodox Judaism. There are cases where due to medical reasons a woman is advised to get an abortion and that is sanctioned by her religion. So I could see some cases being brought before the court having to do with freedom of religion in that respect

Freedom of religion will not trump the right to life.

Also, religion-neutral laws that apply to everyone equally can't typically be challenged on First Amendment grounds. Your religion may believe in animal sacrifice, for example, but government can ban the killing of animals outside of a licensed slaughterhouse.

The vaccine mandate litigation seems to demonstrate otherwise.

That's a different context from criminal law. You're talking about employment law, typically. There aren't any vaccine mandates with criminal penalties for refusal (thankfully).

There is one unusual exemption which allows members of Native American religions to use peyote in the context of religious practices, but that exemption is specifically written into Federal law.

Um, yes there were. When military members refused vaccines on religious grounds, they were violating direct orders, which is a crime. The Trumpist judges gleefully enjoined the military from doing anything about their refusal.

[Anonymous]

Any thoughts on blue states enacting sanctuary laws for women seeking abortions from red states?
Could a state refuse extradition?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tip for anyone else nauseated by this coverage, on any or all sides: You can mute keywords in your social media settings ex. Roe, Wade, abortion, aborted, abortions, fetus. And you will no longer see any of this spam. I did the same when Meghan Markle was flooding my social media ex. Meghan, Markle, Harry, Duchess, Sussex.

Yeah, mute it. Human rights are the absolute equivalent to halfsie royals.

[Anonymous]

This is going to be a moot point as soon as the Republicans take the Senate and the presidency which will be very soon. They'll pass federal law banning abortion. There's nothing. Any supreme Court will be able to do about it for decades

[Anonymous]

My fear is it won't just be an abortion band. It will be very strict and include under no circumstances. Which mean many women will die unnecessarily and many children will grow up without their mothers

[Anonymous]

Any thoughts on whether we could extend this tortured logic to mandatory organ and body donation laws? There’s nothing in the Constitution that says you’re entitled to your own corpse- especially when using your corpse for parts could save countless others. And neutrally applied it wouldn’t infringe any religious beliefs.

We can start with harvesting blood and organs of members of the right to life groups. We could mine a lot of parts and dissect a lot of fundies while the courts worked it out. Obviously we’ll need to extend it eventually to everyone, but the churches have such good records it would be an easy place to start. Imagine the quality of those Mormon organs!

[Anonymous]

Yes, it was set up threadl...currently you can't even force someone to donate an Oregon or blood to their own dying child.

Men might feel a little differently if Little Johnny needed his heart in order to survive. Say goodbye to Daddy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be a moot point as soon as the Republicans take the Senate and the presidency which will be very soon. They'll pass federal law banning abortion. There's nothing. Any supreme Court will be able to do about it for decades

And after they're done with an abortion ban, they'll go after contraception and the LGBTQ communities. They will try to undo marriage equality and go after transgender people. This is the plan. They have been telling us--in one way or another--for years.

[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

You need to read up on IVF. What you are referring to is selective reduction, which some women choose if they end up carrying higher order multiples (which is more likely to occur naturally or through ovulation induction followed by timed intercourse or IUI).
Most reputable IVF clinics won’t transfer more than one or maybe two embryos at a time. Other “fertilized eggs” that become viable embryos are frozen for future use.
And, yes, IVF is most certainly a target for some on the pro-life side. All of this is truly disgusting and makes me sick to my stomach.

- IVF veteran who also had a medically necessary abortion (ectopic)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it was set up threadl...currently you can't even force someone to donate an Oregon or blood to their own dying child.

Men might feel a little differently if Little Johnny needed his heart in order to survive. Say goodbye to Daddy.

What with hearts, lungs and kidneys being pretty size specific, no men will be compelled to step up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be a moot point as soon as the Republicans take the Senate and the presidency which will be very soon. They'll pass federal law banning abortion. There's nothing. Any supreme Court will be able to do about it for decades

Whoa dude. Even if the Repubs take the Senate, there won’t be another Presidential election for two years. A lot can happen between now and then.

[Anonymous]

Make it a Federal law: Any woman denied an abortion and forced to carry child to term will automatically require a DNA test to determine father.

Once established via DNA, the father does get a choice: He can either take full legal custody of child or else pay child support for 18 years. Any violation of child support payments will incur a requirement for community service or mandated minimum jail time.