“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:

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

His argument specifically states that abortion has historically been illegal. That is false and shoddy history intentionally distorted to provide a veneer of respectability to a patently political act. Yet history is his main argument. It's just like their inability to understand deism or anything else complex and nuanced about the past.

If you think Alito’s argument can be boiled down to the proposition that you have a constitutional right to engage in any activity that has not been “historically…illegal” and that abortion is not such a right then you’re just misreading the opinion.

He’s saying there is no right because abortion once was criminalized. The logical deduction from his own argument is that what was not criminalized must be a right. It’s his stupid game, not mine, but he loses at his own game because abortion wasn’t criminalized before quickening in deeply rooted history.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

His argument specifically states that abortion has historically been illegal. That is false and shoddy history intentionally distorted to provide a veneer of respectability to a patently political act. Yet history is his main argument. It's just like their inability to understand deism or anything else complex and nuanced about the past.

If you think Alito’s argument can be boiled down to the proposition that you have a constitutional right to engage in any activity that has not been “historically…illegal” and that abortion is not such a right then you’re just misreading the opinion.

He’s saying there is no right because abortion once was criminalized. The logical deduction from his own argument is that what was not criminalized must be a right. It’s his stupid game, not mine, but he loses at his own game because abortion wasn’t criminalized before quickening in deeply rooted history.

Your second sentence does not follow from the first. In formal logic, it’s called affirming the consequent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rampant anti catholic bigotry on this thread.

as always.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rampant anti catholic bigotry on this thread.

as always.

You are not the victim here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

His argument specifically states that abortion has historically been illegal. That is false and shoddy history intentionally distorted to provide a veneer of respectability to a patently political act. Yet history is his main argument. It's just like their inability to understand deism or anything else complex and nuanced about the past.

If you think Alito’s argument can be boiled down to the proposition that you have a constitutional right to engage in any activity that has not been “historically…illegal” and that abortion is not such a right then you’re just misreading the opinion.

He’s saying there is no right because abortion once was criminalized. The logical deduction from his own argument is that what was not criminalized must be a right. It’s his stupid game, not mine, but he loses at his own game because abortion wasn’t criminalized before quickening in deeply rooted history.

+1 Alito’s “facts” are totally wrong. Good thread on this here:

[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?

Regulating personal decisions based on gender means theyre not provided equal protection. The problem there is the counter argument is that women are provided greater "protection" through these laws and therefore might not have standing. Plus, that would only apply to having an abortion not providing services to have one.

The 9th Amendment (and privacy) was the way to go. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Combine that with the historical truth that abortion (and contraception and interracial marriage and homosexuality) was legal in 1787. Problem there is that the 9th is a very dangerous power to open up. Also, a lot of precedent would have gotten messed up, that doesn't matter anymore because precedent is now messed up because of Alito.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

They don’t care.

They just want to stay in office.

Republicans get abortions, too!!!

[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?

Regulating personal decisions based on gender means theyre not provided equal protection. The problem there is the counter argument is that women are provided greater "protection" through these laws and therefore might not have standing. Plus, that would only apply to having an abortion not providing services to have one.

The 9th Amendment (and privacy) was the way to go. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Combine that with the historical truth that abortion (and contraception and interracial marriage and homosexuality) was legal in 1787. Problem there is that the 9th is a very dangerous power to open up. Also, a lot of precedent would have gotten messed up, that doesn't matter anymore because precedent is now messed up because of Alito.

Why isn’t it a 14th argument based on liberty?

[Anonymous]

" The rights not delegated to the states are reserved by the people "

It is outrageous that the State would EVER have been regulated control over women's bodies

The state should make no law on this because its a choice between a woman and her Doctor

Period. No one else belongs in the debate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

His argument specifically states that abortion has historically been illegal. That is false and shoddy history intentionally distorted to provide a veneer of respectability to a patently political act. Yet history is his main argument. It's just like their inability to understand deism or anything else complex and nuanced about the past.

If you think Alito’s argument can be boiled down to the proposition that you have a constitutional right to engage in any activity that has not been “historically…illegal” and that abortion is not such a right then you’re just misreading the opinion.

He’s saying there is no right because abortion once was criminalized. The logical deduction from his own argument is that what was not criminalized must be a right. It’s his stupid game, not mine, but he loses at his own game because abortion wasn’t criminalized before quickening in deeply rooted history.

+1 Alito’s “facts” are totally wrong. Good thread on this here:

“It was only illegal in lots of places, not all places” does not show that it was deeply rooted throughout the country. Marijuana is legal in some places today, but no one would say that the right to toke up is on footing similar to, say, the right to counsel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

His argument specifically states that abortion has historically been illegal. That is false and shoddy history intentionally distorted to provide a veneer of respectability to a patently political act. Yet history is his main argument. It's just like their inability to understand deism or anything else complex and nuanced about the past.

If you think Alito’s argument can be boiled down to the proposition that you have a constitutional right to engage in any activity that has not been “historically…illegal” and that abortion is not such a right then you’re just misreading the opinion.

He’s saying there is no right because abortion once was criminalized. The logical deduction from his own argument is that what was not criminalized must be a right. It’s his stupid game, not mine, but he loses at his own game because abortion wasn’t criminalized before quickening in deeply rooted history.

+1 Alito’s “facts” are totally wrong. Good thread on this here:

“It was only illegal in lots of places, not all places” does not show that it was deeply rooted throughout the country. Marijuana is legal in some places today, but no one would say that the right to toke up is on footing similar to, say, the right to counsel.

I think you think you sound smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

His argument specifically states that abortion has historically been illegal. That is false and shoddy history intentionally distorted to provide a veneer of respectability to a patently political act. Yet history is his main argument. It's just like their inability to understand deism or anything else complex and nuanced about the past.

If you think Alito’s argument can be boiled down to the proposition that you have a constitutional right to engage in any activity that has not been “historically…illegal” and that abortion is not such a right then you’re just misreading the opinion.

He’s saying there is no right because abortion once was criminalized. The logical deduction from his own argument is that what was not criminalized must be a right. It’s his stupid game, not mine, but he loses at his own game because abortion wasn’t criminalized before quickening in deeply rooted history.

+1 Alito’s “facts” are totally wrong. Good thread on this here:

I’m shocked, shocked I say that a lying sack of crap like Alito and his four merry judicial activists would lie about such a thing so obviously proven wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

His argument specifically states that abortion has historically been illegal. That is false and shoddy history intentionally distorted to provide a veneer of respectability to a patently political act. Yet history is his main argument. It's just like their inability to understand deism or anything else complex and nuanced about the past.

If you think Alito’s argument can be boiled down to the proposition that you have a constitutional right to engage in any activity that has not been “historically…illegal” and that abortion is not such a right then you’re just misreading the opinion.

He’s saying there is no right because abortion once was criminalized. The logical deduction from his own argument is that what was not criminalized must be a right. It’s his stupid game, not mine, but he loses at his own game because abortion wasn’t criminalized before quickening in deeply rooted history.

+1 Alito’s “facts” are totally wrong. Good thread on this here:

“It was only illegal in lots of places, not all places” does not show that it was deeply rooted throughout the country. Marijuana is legal in some places today, but no one would say that the right to toke up is on footing similar to, say, the right to counsel.

I think you think you sound smart.

Yeah, sorta. Wasn’t the goal, but I am running up the scoreboard here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:" The rights not delegated to the states are reserved by the people "

It is outrageous that the State would EVER have been regulated control over women's bodies

The state should make no law on this because its a choice between a woman and her Doctor

Period. No one else belongs in the debate

This cannot be stated enough.