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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to make miscarriage illegal as well because oftentimes the same medications are used to help a woman through a miscarriage as they do through an abortion.
Doctors aren't going to risk doing a damn thing and women will suffer

+1

The GOP would prefer that she be left to die of sepsis, thank you very much. Support the troops!

Family values /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SCOTUS leaked ruling simply says let the state legislators decide the issue of abortion. This is actually the correct position. Keep the feds out of it and let the people thru their elected officials decide. The blue states will keep abortions legal and the reds will limit it to 15 weeks or so.

The hysteria over this is … well … hysterical.

So you willing to bet your life that republicans won’t pass federal ban at their first chance?

Regardless of what side you're on, that's the beauty of america. If you don't like the laws/taxes/refs your state passes, you can vote new reps in to change them or you can move. You don't want to live in a republican state that bans abortion, move or vote to change the law. No one is forcing you to live in a state with values/laws/tax structures you don't agree with.

Since when did Republicans begin supporting representative democracy? Please answer that.

DP. The PP seems to forget what the party of Lincoln actually believed. It’s been true for some time now that certain things cannot be left to the states.

The States can decide but DC cannot.

The 14th Amendment says otherwise. If the federal government can’t do it, then neither can a state. If a state can do it, then so can the federal government. The whole draft opinion is claiming that a ban on abortions does not violate a Constitutional right. The current law since 1973 is that a ban does violate a right. This isn’t about states rights. It’s about individual rights of women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am sickened by what is happening to the U.S.

+ a million totally disgusted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to make miscarriage illegal as well because oftentimes the same medications are used to help a woman through a miscarriage as they do through an abortion.
Doctors aren't going to risk doing a damn thing and women will suffer

+1

She wasn’t a good enough mother to keep her baby alive, so she should die of an infection like God and Republicans intended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to make miscarriage illegal as well because oftentimes the same medications are used to help a woman through a miscarriage as they do through an abortion.
Doctors aren't going to risk doing a damn thing and women will suffer

And to all the women who say, “but my state is fine” and keep voting republican, the blood of women in other states will be on your hands.

+1
Any woman who votes Republican at this point is psychotic and quite possibly a masochist.

Or incredibly dim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SCOTUS leaked ruling simply says let the state legislators decide the issue of abortion. This is actually the correct position. Keep the feds out of it and let the people thru their elected officials decide. The blue states will keep abortions legal and the reds will limit it to 15 weeks or so.

The hysteria over this is … well … hysterical.

So you willing to bet your life that republicans won’t pass federal ban at their first chance?

Regardless of what side you're on, that's the beauty of america. If you don't like the laws/taxes/refs your state passes, you can vote new reps in to change them or you can move. You don't want to live in a republican state that bans abortion, move or vote to change the law. No one is forcing you to live in a state with values/laws/tax structures you don't agree with.

Since when did Republicans begin supporting representative democracy? Please answer that.

DP. The PP seems to forget what the party of Lincoln actually believed. It’s been true for some time now that certain things cannot be left to the states.

The States can decide but DC cannot.

The 14th Amendment says otherwise. If the federal government can’t do it, then neither can a state. If a state can do it, then so can the federal government. The whole draft opinion is claiming that a ban on abortions does not violate a Constitutional right. The current law since 1973 is that a ban does violate a right. This isn’t about states rights. It’s about individual rights of women.

Right but that’s what conservatives are saying, “states rights” (will not address where that argument got them before..) but it puts DC in an outright ban because it’s not a state.

[Anonymous]

All has to do with misogyny and racism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to make miscarriage illegal as well because oftentimes the same medications are used to help a woman through a miscarriage as they do through an abortion.
Doctors aren't going to risk doing a damn thing and women will suffer

Just stop.
The draft opinion stated
“To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” he wrote. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

Miscarriage is an act of nature. It is not an abortion.

In medical terms it is an abortion. Are you unfamiliar with the technical definition of abortion?

At any rate, prove that a miscarriage wasn’t self-induced. That is what Republicans will start asking. Just as conservatives in countries that ban abortion have done. And if a pregnancy is failing but the heart activity is still detected, doctors will risk sepsis instead of terminating. As has already happened.

This. Any medical intervention during a miscarriage is labeled as an assisted abortion. You can tell that many people who have an opinion about this actually don't have the facts

They write like 20 year old boys. They probably are.

Nope. Older woman here who has actually had a miscarriage.

When speaking of "abortion rights," a miscarriage and abortion are very different things. While a miscarriage is medically referred to as a "spontaneous abortion," there is no "choice" in a miscarriage. It is an act of nature.
Abortion, on the other hand, is very much about choice.

Abortion refers to the termination of a pregnancy, which may happen naturally or with medical intervention. A miscarriage is known as a Abortion refers to the termination of a pregnancy, which may happen naturally or with medical intervention. A miscarriage is known as a "spontaneous abortion."
Abortion is a term that refers to the termination of a pregnancy. This can occur with medical intervention such as medications or surgical procedures or it can occur on its own.

A miscarriage is called a spontaneous abortion, and refers to a pregnancy loss before the 20th week of gestation or the expulsion an embryo or fetus weighing 500 g or less. Miscarriage at this stage occurs in about 31% of pregnancies.

https://www.emedicinehealth.com/what_are_abortion_and_miscarriage/article_em.htm

Did you require medical assistance to complete your miscarriage? Because that assistance is what some of us are saying could be put in jeopardy here.

An incomplete miscarriage is what killed Savita Halappanavar, the Irish woman whose death from being denied an abortion helped lead to Ireland legalizing abortion in 2018.

Halappanavar arrived at hospital on October 21, 2012, complaining of lower back pain that had lasted for around 12 hours. She was 17 weeks into her first pregnancy at the time.

After examination, doctors found that Halappanavar's pregnancy was inevitably going to fail due to complications and she was admitted that same day. On October 22 her water broke but the fetus was not expelled.

On October 23, Halappanavar and her husband asked whether her labor could be induced since they did not want to wait longer than necessary if the pregnancy was to fail anyway. They were told by a consultant that this was not possible under Irish law—they had not identified adequate risk to the patient.

Over time Halappanavar's condition worsened and she was diagnosed with sepsis on October 24. That same day she miscarried and delivered the fetus. She was admitted to an intensive care unit on the morning of October 25, and her health continued to worsen.

Halappanavar died on Sunday, October 28. The cause of her death was documented as multi-organ failure following sepsis and E. coli infection.

A report into the case found that there had been failings in the care that Halappanavar received, including that health staff did not recognize early signs of infection that might have spurred them to terminate pregnancy earlier due to a threat to her life, which would have been permissible according to The Life Institute.

https://www.newsweek.com/roe-wade-savita-halappanavar-abortion-pregnancy-case-ireland-1702913

[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.

That Twitter thread counts several more states off Alito’s list where abortion was illegal after quickening but not before, as was the common law tradition. The current law is Roe, which recognizes a right. To overturn Roe, Alito has to prove it’s not a right. His argument that it isn’t a right because it isn’t “deeply rooted” is (a) stupidly illogical and (b) stupidly incorrect. “Deeply rooted” is some nonsense from a 1997 case, so it isn’t a deeply rooted concept itself. But abortion before quickening was legal and is, in fact, deeply rooted. Abortion was and is a right.

The historian in that thread also says that even in states that criminalized abortion before passage of the 14th Amendment, the laws were understood and enforced to mean after quickening because that was the long tradition under common law. It wasn’t considered an abortion if it wasn’t a quick child. Alito failed at the deeply rooted history.

[Anonymous]

Choosing to bring life into the world, or not, is a fundamental right. Prove to me it’s not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Choosing to bring life into the world, or not, is a fundamental right. Prove to me it’s not.

God says it's not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choosing to bring life into the world, or not, is a fundamental right. Prove to me it’s not.

God says it's not

God who? I’m talking about the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SCOTUS leaked ruling simply says let the state legislators decide the issue of abortion. This is actually the correct position. Keep the feds out of it and let the people thru their elected officials decide. The blue states will keep abortions legal and the reds will limit it to 15 weeks or so.

The hysteria over this is … well … hysterical.

So you willing to bet your life that republicans won’t pass federal ban at their first chance?

Regardless of what side you're on, that's the beauty of america. If you don't like the laws/taxes/refs your state passes, you can vote new reps in to change them or you can move. You don't want to live in a republican state that bans abortion, move or vote to change the law. No one is forcing you to live in a state with values/laws/tax structures you don't agree with.

Since when did Republicans begin supporting representative democracy? Please answer that.

DP. The PP seems to forget what the party of Lincoln actually believed. It’s been true for some time now that certain things cannot be left to the states.

The States can decide but DC cannot.

The 14th Amendment says otherwise. If the federal government can’t do it, then neither can a state. If a state can do it, then so can the federal government. The whole draft opinion is claiming that a ban on abortions does not violate a Constitutional right. The current law since 1973 is that a ban does violate a right. This isn’t about states rights. It’s about individual rights of women.

Right but that’s what conservatives are saying, “states rights” (will not address where that argument got them before..) but it puts DC in an outright ban because it’s not a state.

DC can pass its own laws and act as a state except when Congress specifically limits and overrules its authority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to make miscarriage illegal as well because oftentimes the same medications are used to help a woman through a miscarriage as they do through an abortion.
Doctors aren't going to risk doing a damn thing and women will suffer

Just stop.
The draft opinion stated
“To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” he wrote. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

Miscarriage is an act of nature. It is not an abortion.

In medical terms it is an abortion. Are you unfamiliar with the technical definition of abortion?

At any rate, prove that a miscarriage wasn’t self-induced. That is what Republicans will start asking. Just as conservatives in countries that ban abortion have done. And if a pregnancy is failing but the heart activity is still detected, doctors will risk sepsis instead of terminating. As has already happened.

This. Any medical intervention during a miscarriage is labeled as an assisted abortion. You can tell that many people who have an opinion about this actually don't have the facts

They write like 20 year old boys. They probably are.

Nope. Older woman here who has actually had a miscarriage.

When speaking of "abortion rights," a miscarriage and abortion are very different things. While a miscarriage is medically referred to as a "spontaneous abortion," there is no "choice" in a miscarriage. It is an act of nature.
Abortion, on the other hand, is very much about choice.

Abortion refers to the termination of a pregnancy, which may happen naturally or with medical intervention. A miscarriage is known as a Abortion refers to the termination of a pregnancy, which may happen naturally or with medical intervention. A miscarriage is known as a "spontaneous abortion."
Abortion is a term that refers to the termination of a pregnancy. This can occur with medical intervention such as medications or surgical procedures or it can occur on its own.

A miscarriage is called a spontaneous abortion, and refers to a pregnancy loss before the 20th week of gestation or the expulsion an embryo or fetus weighing 500 g or less. Miscarriage at this stage occurs in about 31% of pregnancies.

https://www.emedicinehealth.com/what_are_abortion_and_miscarriage/article_em.htm

Did you require medical assistance to complete your miscarriage? Because that assistance is what some of us are saying could be put in jeopardy here.

+1

Did the PP actually have a D&C for her miscarriage? I’m guessing not since she’s not familiar with the terminology.

It is considered an abortion. That’s how it is referenced for scheduling and insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choosing to bring life into the world, or not, is a fundamental right. Prove to me it’s not.

God says it's not

God actually provides direction and specific instructions for an abortion. See Numbers 5: 11-31