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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Democrat, pro-choice, and a law professor. With that said, I agree with Justice Ginsburg: the logic of Roe was haphazardly pieced together. Casey is proof of that. My sincere hope is the final decision gives some limited federal protection at the federal level, kicks it back to the states, and opens the door for an equal protections argument in the future.

In other words, you do not believe women have the right to bodily autonomy or to make their own medical decisions.

I do, but the Roe legal argument was not super great. Roe should be about equal protection, not privacy.

How does equal protection work in this context when no one else is similarly situated with women in relation to pregnancy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Democrat, pro-choice, and a law professor. With that said, I agree with Justice Ginsburg: the logic of Roe was haphazardly pieced together. Casey is proof of that. My sincere hope is the final decision gives some limited federal protection at the federal level, kicks it back to the states, and opens the door for an equal protections argument in the future.

What an utterly wrong and disingenuous piece of sh!t you are. Yea, RBG really took every opportunity to seek to overturn Roe or chip away at abortion rights.

Ohh wait, that’s right, she did the literal opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m making myself read the damn thing and I don’t think I’ve ever been more disgusted. Apparently women have no fundamental rights to bodily autonomy that are rooted in the country’s history. Well. That sounds about right.

Expand the court.

Also historians are pointing out that Alito’s main assumption is incorrect. In most states, abortion was legal before quickening. Deeply rooted in history.

Well then, historians don’t know that the absence of criminal prohibitions is not the same as the presence of a deeply rooted right. If it were tuxedo Wednesdays would be a fundamental right

Abortion and contraception was legal in the US before Emancipation. Chew on that, and understand what that REALLY means.

The modern GOP would gladly bring back slavery. But if they can't do that, they'll settle for a lot of dead Black women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m making myself read the damn thing and I don’t think I’ve ever been more disgusted. Apparently women have no fundamental rights to bodily autonomy that are rooted in the country’s history. Well. That sounds about right.

Expand the court.

Also historians are pointing out that Alito’s main assumption is incorrect. In most states, abortion was legal before quickening. Deeply rooted in history.

Abortion has been “legal” for far more centuries than it hasn’t. Women have always found ways to care for themselves and the families.

Abortion has been around for as long as humans have had sex. And it always will be. No matter what cons try to do to suppress it and how dangerous a procedure they make it by forcing it to go underground.

Exactly. And is it any surprise that abortion started becoming recognized as a fundamental right shortly after the full enfranchisement of women? damn these people.

It was actually after Emancipation and free labor disappeared. Also, midwives provided prenatal care, and contraceptives, and abortions - until white men decided they needed the money and took it over. And…here we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m making myself read the damn thing and I don’t think I’ve ever been more disgusted. Apparently women have no fundamental rights to bodily autonomy that are rooted in the country’s history. Well. That sounds about right.

Expand the court.

Just curious, did you support or were against mandatory Covid vaccinations in order to work, attend college, go to school, participate in life, travel, get hospital treatments, etc?

Just curious. Is pregnancy airborne?

Just curious. Does getting a vaccination to participate in social things last for 9 painful months of your body completely being altered in a potentially dangerous way and then needing to go through a long, extremely harrowing and bloody process to expel an expensive being that you'll be responsible for over the next 18 years?

Just curious, is someone actually strapping you to a table to inject the vaccination against your will? Or is it YOUR CHOICE whether you get it or not? Obviously that choice can have consequences. Just like the choice of whether to keep a pregnancy!

are you going to keep pretending that nobody was forced into these shots they didn't want? Are you still going to keep pretending that they stop transmission or that vaxxports and work/college/kid mandates were introduced to protect others from the unvaxxed cooties? No, politicians behind the mandates openly admitted it was to coerce the public into doing what's "good for them", even if it was known already that vaxxed test positive and transmit Covid. Our very own DC mayor, her team, actually said this openly during their townhall.

I am pro-choice BTW, I am consistent in my beliefs about humans having bodily autonomy rights. Are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Democrat, pro-choice, and a law professor. With that said, I agree with Justice Ginsburg: the logic of Roe was haphazardly pieced together. Casey is proof of that. My sincere hope is the final decision gives some limited federal protection at the federal level, kicks it back to the states, and opens the door for an equal protections argument in the future.

John Hart Ely, posting on DCUM from beyond the grave

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Democrat, pro-choice, and a law professor. With that said, I agree with Justice Ginsburg: the logic of Roe was haphazardly pieced together. Casey is proof of that. My sincere hope is the final decision gives some limited federal protection at the federal level, kicks it back to the states, and opens the door for an equal protections argument in the future.

In other words, you do not believe women have the right to bodily autonomy or to make their own medical decisions.

I do, but the Roe legal argument was not super great. Roe should be about equal protection, not privacy.

How does equal protection work in this context when no one else is similarly situated with women in relation to pregnancy?

Women's ability to equally participate in economic and social life is dependent, in part, on their control over their reproduction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m making myself read the damn thing and I don’t think I’ve ever been more disgusted. Apparently women have no fundamental rights to bodily autonomy that are rooted in the country’s history. Well. That sounds about right.

Expand the court.

Also historians are pointing out that Alito’s main assumption is incorrect. In most states, abortion was legal before quickening. Deeply rooted in history.

Well then, historians don’t know that the absence of criminal prohibitions is not the same as the presence of a deeply rooted right. If it were tuxedo Wednesdays would be a fundamental right

No. He made a big deal that back before women could vote, most states criminalized abortion, and that somehow means there can never be a right to abortion ever. But most of those old laws punished abortion only after quickening, which means there was a recognized right before quickening. That was also the common law history. It wasn’t controversial.

Also, the correct analogy would be that having Tuxedo Wednesdays is none of the government’s business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m making myself read the damn thing and I don’t think I’ve ever been more disgusted. Apparently women have no fundamental rights to bodily autonomy that are rooted in the country’s history. Well. That sounds about right.

Expand the court.

Also historians are pointing out that Alito’s main assumption is incorrect. In most states, abortion was legal before quickening. Deeply rooted in history.

Well then, historians don’t know that the absence of criminal prohibitions is not the same as the presence of a deeply rooted right. If it were tuxedo Wednesdays would be a fundamental right

Abortion and contraception was legal in the US before Emancipation. Chew on that, and understand what that REALLY means.

If you’re suggesting that emancipation was once illegal, I’m not sure that’s correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Democrat, pro-choice, and a law professor. With that said, I agree with Justice Ginsburg: the logic of Roe was haphazardly pieced together. Casey is proof of that. My sincere hope is the final decision gives some limited federal protection at the federal level, kicks it back to the states, and opens the door for an equal protections argument in the future.

In other words, you do not believe women have the right to bodily autonomy or to make their own medical decisions.

I do, but the Roe legal argument was not super great. Roe should be about equal protection, not privacy.

How does equal protection work in this context when no one else is similarly situated with women in relation to pregnancy?

DP. Can you think of any law that restricts the ability to obtain life saving healthcare like this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Democrat, pro-choice, and a law professor. With that said, I agree with Justice Ginsburg: the logic of Roe was haphazardly pieced together. Casey is proof of that. My sincere hope is the final decision gives some limited federal protection at the federal level, kicks it back to the states, and opens the door for an equal protections argument in the future.

In other words, you do not believe women have the right to bodily autonomy or to make their own medical decisions.

I do, but the Roe legal argument was not super great. Roe should be about equal protection, not privacy.

How does equal protection work in this context when no one else is similarly situated with women in relation to pregnancy?

Women's ability to equally participate in economic and social life is dependent, in part, on their control over their reproduction.

You think that's better than a privacy-based argument? The obvious answer is that pregnancy is something women "choose" (since the Republican position doesn't allow for the possibility that women can become pregnant despite using birth control or as a result of rape or incest) and they are not entitled to protection from the consequences of their personal choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Democrat, pro-choice, and a law professor. With that said, I agree with Justice Ginsburg: the logic of Roe was haphazardly pieced together. Casey is proof of that. My sincere hope is the final decision gives some limited federal protection at the federal level, kicks it back to the states, and opens the door for an equal protections argument in the future.

In other words, you do not believe women have the right to bodily autonomy or to make their own medical decisions.

I do, but the Roe legal argument was not super great. Roe should be about equal protection, not privacy.

How does equal protection work in this context when no one else is similarly situated with women in relation to pregnancy?

Women's ability to equally participate in economic and social life is dependent, in part, on their control over their reproduction.

DP. It’s not just that. It’s about equal access to healthcare. Every pregnancy is a risk. Women should have just as much right to end a pregnancy as anyone has to have any other medical procedure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m making myself read the damn thing and I don’t think I’ve ever been more disgusted. Apparently women have no fundamental rights to bodily autonomy that are rooted in the country’s history. Well. That sounds about right.

Expand the court.

Also historians are pointing out that Alito’s main assumption is incorrect. In most states, abortion was legal before quickening. Deeply rooted in history.

Well then, historians don’t know that the absence of criminal prohibitions is not the same as the presence of a deeply rooted right. If it were tuxedo Wednesdays would be a fundamental right

Abortion and contraception was legal in the US before Emancipation. Chew on that, and understand what that REALLY means.

If you’re suggesting that emancipation was once illegal, I’m not sure that’s correct?

No. I am saying that prior to the emancipation of slaves, abortion was legal for all women. It was never about “life”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m making myself read the damn thing and I don’t think I’ve ever been more disgusted. Apparently women have no fundamental rights to bodily autonomy that are rooted in the country’s history. Well. That sounds about right.

Expand the court.

Also historians are pointing out that Alito’s main assumption is incorrect. In most states, abortion was legal before quickening. Deeply rooted in history.

Well then, historians don’t know that the absence of criminal prohibitions is not the same as the presence of a deeply rooted right. If it were tuxedo Wednesdays would be a fundamental right

No. He made a big deal that back before women could vote, most states criminalized abortion, and that somehow means there can never be a right to abortion ever. But most of those old laws punished abortion only after quickening, which means there was a recognized right before quickening. That was also the common law history. It wasn’t controversial.

Also, the correct analogy would be that having Tuxedo Wednesdays is none of the government’s business.

On the tuxedo Wednesday thing, we agree: it is none of the government’s business in the same respect that abortion is none of the government’s business. In other words, there is no constitutional dimension to either

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m making myself read the damn thing and I don’t think I’ve ever been more disgusted. Apparently women have no fundamental rights to bodily autonomy that are rooted in the country’s history. Well. That sounds about right.

Expand the court.

Also historians are pointing out that Alito’s main assumption is incorrect. In most states, abortion was legal before quickening. Deeply rooted in history.

Well then, historians don’t know that the absence of criminal prohibitions is not the same as the presence of a deeply rooted right. If it were tuxedo Wednesdays would be a fundamental right

No. He made a big deal that back before women could vote, most states criminalized abortion, and that somehow means there can never be a right to abortion ever. But most of those old laws punished abortion only after quickening, which means there was a recognized right before quickening. That was also the common law history. It wasn’t controversial.

Also, the correct analogy would be that having Tuxedo Wednesdays is none of the government’s business.

On the tuxedo Wednesday thing, we agree: it is none of the government’s business in the same respect that abortion is none of the government’s business. In other words, there is no constitutional dimension to either

DP. You have a right to tuxedo Wednesday. The government can’t stop you because the constitution enumerates the powers of the government. Not the rights of the people. And the government can’t stop me from ending a pregnancy I don’t want. Someone show me where the constitution gives the government that power, because I’m not seeing it in this BS “opinion”