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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, to summarize points made by others since this thread is growing exponentially, the Right will be forcing women to have babies they don't want while simultaneously:

--fighting against healthcare for all Americans, which includes prenatal and pediatric care

--fighting Dem efforts to provide universal pre-school, paid family leave, and subsidized childcare--all things that could help women who are forced to bear babies they don't want

--fighting against a higher minimum wage, child tax credits, and any other legislation that would help women stay out of poverty and raise babies they are forced to give birth to

[phone] that about sums it up. It’s diabolical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States Rights is part of the Constitution, abortion isnt.

Go read the Ninth Amendment. You know, the one right before the Tenth one with the “States Rights” in it.

Correct. It’s just so obvious here. What power does the state have to criminalize abortion? Where does the constitution give the government that power?

Explain it to me because that is the question. And I don’t think there is a legitimate state interest in denying pregnant women access to medical care that, if denied, would increase their chances of harm.

They're argument is that the State has the inherent power to control everything not specifically excluded. It flips the entire principle of our democracy upside down. Under their interpretation of the Constitution power flows down instead of up. Rights are not inherent to individuals but rather courtesies given to the people by the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is no god. I don’t care what 5 people thousands of years ago cobbled together. They have zero right to make any decisions in my life.

Specifically, 5 *men* with limited education and zero medical training.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Who’s god? Not mine. Not one I elected either.

+2. I don't care what God says. And in a secular society, I don't need to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will police forces across the country need to set up new divisions and hire new officers to investigate abortions and miscarriages?

The regular police force managed to accomplish this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/01/indiana-woman-jailed-for-feticide-its-never-happened-before/

This is an extreme case. Many women miscarry early in their pregnancy, well before they are showing. If a woman tells her right-wing neighbor she had a miscarriage and the neighbor doesn’t believe her and reports this the police, will they have to investigate? What will she have to do to avoid being charged with murder?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every elected official should have to sway under oath that no woman they've ever impregnated has gotten an abortion.
And they should get mandatory 10 years in prison if they are found to have perjured themselves

1,000% this. And full media notification of their answers. I find it interesting that Alito has two children. Why only 2? It seems statistically impossible that sperm met egg only 2 times in his relationship with his wife. What birth control, that will be outlawed next, was part of this arrangement?

Most Catholics I know that are his age have at least a half dozen kids

Bullsh--. I went through Pre Cana in Arlington Diocese, one of the most conservative in the Country (per their own priests). The Deacon that gave the birth control speech, while having 10 kids of his own, openly admitted the VAST majority of Catholics use BC of some sort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, to summarize points made by others since this thread is growing exponentially, the Right will be forcing women to have babies they don't want while simultaneously:

--fighting against healthcare for all Americans, which includes prenatal and pediatric care

--fighting Dem efforts to provide universal pre-school, paid family leave, and subsidized childcare--all things that could help women who are forced to bear babies they don't want

--fighting against a higher minimum wage, child tax credits, and any other legislation that would help women stay out of poverty and raise babies they are forced to give birth to

[phone] that about sums it up. It’s diabolical.

Not really, it’s clever. The plan is to make things so awful for poor, unwed (or wed) mothers that the women have to give up their children while they are cute, cuddly little babies. Religious affiliated adoption agencies make a lot of money placing these babies with faithful couples who promise to toe the line. So much money, considering the product they’re selling is free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States Rights is part of the Constitution, abortion isnt.

Go read the Ninth Amendment. You know, the one right before the Tenth one with the “States Rights” in it.

Correct. It’s just so obvious here. What power does the state have to criminalize abortion? Where does the constitution give the government that power?

Explain it to me because that is the question. And I don’t think there is a legitimate state interest in denying pregnant women access to medical care that, if denied, would increase their chances of harm.

They're argument is that the State has the inherent power to control everything not specifically excluded. It flips the entire principle of our democracy upside down. Under their interpretation of the Constitution power flows down instead of up. Rights are not inherent to individuals but rather courtesies given to the people by the government.

Yes, that’s how I read the opinion. Scary AF

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every elected official should have to sway under oath that no woman they've ever impregnated has gotten an abortion.
And they should get mandatory 10 years in prison if they are found to have perjured themselves

1,000% this. And full media notification of their answers. I find it interesting that Alito has two children. Why only 2? It seems statistically impossible that sperm met egg only 2 times in his relationship with his wife. What birth control, that will be outlawed next, was part of this arrangement?

Most Catholics I know that are his age have at least a half dozen kids

Bullsh--. I went through Pre Cana in Arlington Diocese, one of the most conservative in the Country (per their own priests). The Deacon that gave the birth control speech, while having 10 kids of his own, openly admitted the VAST majority of Catholics use BC of some sort.

Whoa, you are mixing up the hypocrisy between Catholic rules & what "Catholics" actually do. Point being Alito is likely a huge hypocrite in how he sees the rules. SCOTUS or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, to summarize points made by others since this thread is growing exponentially, the Right will be forcing women to have babies they don't want while simultaneously:

--fighting against healthcare for all Americans, which includes prenatal and pediatric care

--fighting Dem efforts to provide universal pre-school, paid family leave, and subsidized childcare--all things that could help women who are forced to bear babies they don't want

--fighting against a higher minimum wage, child tax credits, and any other legislation that would help women stay out of poverty and raise babies they are forced to give birth to

[phone] that about sums it up. It’s diabolical.

Not really, it’s clever. The plan is to make things so awful for poor, unwed (or wed) mothers that the women have to give up their children while they are cute, cuddly little babies. Religious affiliated adoption agencies make a lot of money placing these babies with faithful couples who promise to toe the line. So much money, considering the product they’re selling is free.

But what about the brown babies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What was the point of leaking this report?

To make us all aware of this outrageous decision.

Outrageous to whom?

To a majority of Americans who support access to abortion, that's who.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/06/25/majority-of-americans-support-abortion-poll-finds---but-not-later-in-the-pregnancy/?sh=2857f6f55074

You think all those people will be outraged? I support legal abortion early prior to certain developments in the nervous system. Despite my belief that early abortions should be legal, I won't be outraged if Roe is overturned

I was really planning to read all 100+ pages of this thread, but I can't continue without commenting on this. If this has been discussed in the next 80+ pages that I haven't read yet, please excuse me.

I understand that some people might not be outraged if Roe is overturned. They might feel conflicted about abortion, which is understandable. But please look beyond the single issue of abortion and consider that if this precedent (not a lawyer, forgive me if I'm using the wrong word) can be overturned, what other right or law might be overturned or reversed? If you are pro-life or ambivalent or think this doesn't impact you, the next thing could.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Mechanically, they may be the same procedure but they are being done for different reasons.

In one, the child is already dead (or not viable, say partially formed). In the other, the pregnancy would continue if the procedure was not initiated. Having necrotic tissue sitting there is not safe at all.

Do you know much about late term abortions and why they happen? Because “partially formed” is usually part of the analysis. And its clearly ok to criminalize it under this opinion.

Hey, I am with you. I was just explaining to the person who seemed to be confused about the procedures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, to summarize points made by others since this thread is growing exponentially, the Right will be forcing women to have babies they don't want while simultaneously:

--fighting against healthcare for all Americans, which includes prenatal and pediatric care

--fighting Dem efforts to provide universal pre-school, paid family leave, and subsidized childcare--all things that could help women who are forced to bear babies they don't want

--fighting against a higher minimum wage, child tax credits, and any other legislation that would help women stay out of poverty and raise babies they are forced to give birth to

[phone] that about sums it up. It’s diabolical.

Not really, it’s clever. The plan is to make things so awful for poor, unwed (or wed) mothers that the women have to give up their children while they are cute, cuddly little babies. Religious affiliated adoption agencies make a lot of money placing these babies with faithful couples who promise to toe the line. So much money, considering the product they’re selling is free.

But what about the brown babies?

I’m sure a few of the brown babies will get picked up, probably the Hispanic ones. The black, drug addled ones will languish in foster care as they always have, and end up in prison as they always have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States Rights is part of the Constitution, abortion isnt.

Go read the Ninth Amendment. You know, the one right before the Tenth one with the “States Rights” in it.

Correct. It’s just so obvious here. What power does the state have to criminalize abortion? Where does the constitution give the government that power?

Explain it to me because that is the question. And I don’t think there is a legitimate state interest in denying pregnant women access to medical care that, if denied, would increase their chances of harm.

They're argument is that the State has the inherent power to control everything not specifically excluded. It flips the entire principle of our democracy upside down. Under their interpretation of the Constitution power flows down instead of up. Rights are not inherent to individuals but rather courtesies given to the people by the government.

That is insane.

WTAF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The next topic better be mandated federal health care. That's affordable and mental health care in addition to affordable child care and a living wage

That’s a nice thought, but we all know Republicans don’t give a shit what happens to kids after they’re born.

+1

They just want to keep as many people poor and powerless as possible.