“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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: When women are forced to carry pregnancies they often die. So please tel me why criminalizing abortion doesn’t violate any fundamental rights again?

You’re living in the GOP created theocracy. Women have no fundamentally rights because five people on the Supreme Court are so stupid that they literally believe women were created by God from Adam’s rib. There’s a literal handmaiden on the court who said that pregnancy and childbirth weren’t that difficult.

Well yes but I’d like one person her supports this travesty of a legal opinion to explain to me how the “fascist five” so casually explained fundamental rights away to avoid having to apply strict scrutiny.

Three of the justices are totally and completely illegitimate, that’s how. The GOP just does what it wants, and no I don’t know why. I guess Democrats are just fundamentally decent people who believe in the rule of law and won’t take the motherkillers down, but here we are.

Sorry I don’t mean “how” literally. I mean I would like someone to explain the logic to me because in my reading of the opinion I’m not finding any.

They don’t need any. Now do you get it? When people have been warning that the GOP wants a religious dictatorship or a theocracy or a fascist dictatorship, did you not understand that they meant it? There doesn’t have to be any logic. For the GOP there is no rule of law anymore. Anything goes; they clearly don’t have to have any reason for anything.

No I understand, but do you understand that I am asking people who think differently to engage their brains on this? It’s not a sound legal opinion. I would like someone who supports it to explain why they do.

In a nutshell: Stare Decisis. This is a principle that say you must adhere to precedent, even when you don't like it. The Post editorial on this is quite good today and they make a point in saying that, yes, while in some cases precedent was over-ruled, those cases involved expanding rights NOT restricting rights. Certainly not restricting some of the most intimate decisions a person can make. Read that editorial.

In this instance, this opinion restricts rights SIGNIFICANTLY and allows the states to intrude upon reproductive and medical decisions of the individual. And, lbh, it's because of religion. SCOTUS is nothing more than a Catholic Tribunal at this point. The majority of Americans DO NOT WANT Roe overturned. Yes, even Republicans.

[Anonymous]

It’s freaking news to me that access to healthcare isn’t a fundamental human right guaranteed under the constitution. Had no idea. What’s next, organ transplants? maybe IVF? How about blood transfusions. All kinds of whacky stuff a state could decide it doesn’t like.

[Anonymous]

The Auntie Networks and local abortion funds will be more important than ever.

https://abortionfunds.org/about/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyway question stands… can someone please restate the logic behind the conclusion that there are no fundamental rights at stake in this case?

I’ll wait.

Hey, pro-choice moderate up there, do you have an answer to this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It’s in the Constitution. Per the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

.

Now read the 14th.

I’m aware of the 14th thanks. I was responding to PPs who didn’t understand that the constitution gives powers not specifically excluded to the states. Subject to the other provisions of the constitution of course, and therein lies the issue.

Ahem. The states OR the people. Read the entire 10th Amendment. And while you're at it, read the 9th Amendment as well.

Subject to final interpretation by SCOTUS like it or not. (FWIW, I personally am very upset about this but don’t agree with the PPs who think the SC should be abolished.)

The fact remains that the 10th Amendment says the States or the People. Taking away a right, taking it from the people and giving it to the states is a massive aggrandizement of government power completely at odds with our "deeply rooted history".

The Constitution limits the states’ authority. States do not have more authority to restrict rights than the federal government has. They both are bound by the Constitution. It’s either a right protected against both federal and state action or it isn’t a protected right and can be restricted by either federal or state laws. It can’t be a right protected from federal law but not from state law. The Civil War and Amendment 14 fixed that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It’s in the Constitution. Per the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

.

Now read the 14th.

I’m aware of the 14th thanks. I was responding to PPs who didn’t understand that the constitution gives powers not specifically excluded to the states. Subject to the other provisions of the constitution of course, and therein lies the issue.

Ahem. The states OR the people. Read the entire 10th Amendment. And while you're at it, read the 9th Amendment as well.

Subject to final interpretation by SCOTUS like it or not. (FWIW, I personally am very upset about this but don’t agree with the PPs who think the SC should be abolished.)

The fact remains that the 10th Amendment says the States or the People. Taking away a right, taking it from the people and giving it to the states is a massive aggrandizement of government power completely at odds with our "deeply rooted history".

Listen I agree with you. It’s a big effing deal. But if/when SCOTUS interprets the constitution as having never given that right, what can be done short of a federal law getting passed that guarantees this right?

Sure, but what makes you think the court wouldn’t invalidate or weaken that law? Haven’t we seen this story before with voting rights statutes and other civil rights statutes?

-DP

I agree this court could do just that and women would screwed. I don’t think we will ever have enough votes to codify this via constitutional amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It’s in the Constitution. Per the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

.

Now read the 14th.

I’m aware of the 14th thanks. I was responding to PPs who didn’t understand that the constitution gives powers not specifically excluded to the states. Subject to the other provisions of the constitution of course, and therein lies the issue.

Ahem. The states OR the people. Read the entire 10th Amendment. And while you're at it, read the 9th Amendment as well.

Subject to final interpretation by SCOTUS like it or not. (FWIW, I personally am very upset about this but don’t agree with the PPs who think the SC should be abolished.)

The fact remains that the 10th Amendment says the States or the People. Taking away a right, taking it from the people and giving it to the states is a massive aggrandizement of government power completely at odds with our "deeply rooted history".

Listen I agree with you. It’s a big effing deal. But if/when SCOTUS interprets the constitution as having never given that right, what can be done short of a federal law getting passed that guarantees this right?

It's going to need a future SCOTUS smacking them down, which needs people to vote to make it happen. It does no benefit to underplay what's happening, or how out of step it is with our founding principles, on a philosophical level. It's not just about abortion and a federal law does nothing to restore what is seemingly going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amazon’s offering up to $4k in travel expenses to help women cover the expense of having to go to a different state for medical care.

It's fine because very few professional people have abortions as they use bc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazon’s offering up to $4k in travel expenses to help women cover the expense of having to go to a different state for medical care.

It's fine because very few professional people have abortions as they use bc

Your math is wrong, friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazon’s offering up to $4k in travel expenses to help women cover the expense of having to go to a different state for medical care.

It's fine because very few professional people have abortions as they use bc

Many women do not use birth control—particularly women who are at high risk for pregnancy complications for a variety of reasons, but often advanced maternal age. I cannot get pregnant again. I won’t risk it, but I can’t tolerate birth control either. I have been fortunate not to need an abortion but would not hesitate to get one. Anyway.

Amazon is setting up a doozy of a case, I would be really interested in it. But I’d be happier if corporations pulled out of states that don’t support abortion access.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyway question stands… can someone please restate the logic behind the conclusion that there are no fundamental rights at stake in this case?

I’ll wait.

We had that discussion all day yesterday. It’s a stupid argument but Alito says there is no right to abortion because it wasn’t acknowledged as a right in most of history. Literally, not “deeply rooted in history.” He’s actually wrong about that. Somehow, he believes there can be no new or expanded recognition of rights that previously were denied. So since he says there is no right to abortion, he says states are allowed to do whatever they want to do to restrict abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway question stands… can someone please restate the logic behind the conclusion that there are no fundamental rights at stake in this case?

I’ll wait.

We had that discussion all day yesterday. It’s a stupid argument but Alito says there is no right to abortion because it wasn’t acknowledged as a right in most of history. Literally, not “deeply rooted in history.” He’s actually wrong about that. Somehow, he believes there can be no new or expanded recognition of rights that previously were denied. So since he says there is no right to abortion, he says states are allowed to do whatever they want to do to restrict abortion.

Thanks. Just want it top of mind for people. It’s as absurd as it sounds here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway question stands… can someone please restate the logic behind the conclusion that there are no fundamental rights at stake in this case?

I’ll wait.

We had that discussion all day yesterday. It’s a stupid argument but Alito says there is no right to abortion because it wasn’t acknowledged as a right in most of history. Literally, not “deeply rooted in history.” He’s actually wrong about that. Somehow, he believes there can be no new or expanded recognition of rights that previously were denied. So since he says there is no right to abortion, he says states are allowed to do whatever they want to do to restrict abortion.

What is listed in the constitution as "fundamental rights" that are "deeply rooted in history" other than those listed in the bill of rights? If other "rights" are not fundamental and not rooted in history then I guess we can just get rid of those too right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we are basically saying down goes Roe and to follow will be:

Brown v The Board of Education
Loving v Virginia
Obergefell v. Hodges

These will all be overturned at the federal level and be left up to the States. That is my take on things.

Agreed. Segregation, interracial marriage and gay marriage are all toast if this opinion issues.

So what do we do to prepare if we are in an interracial marriage and have interracial kids? Are we no longer considered married? Our marriage benefits no longer apply?

and who can inter-racial kids marry? I think we can look to Louisiana history for that. At one time, you were Black if you were 1/8th black. So interracial kids could only marry black or interracial people. THis is so sick.

So we'll have a bunch of backwards states full of white Christian conservatives, and everyone else will flock to the coasts like they already have been doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway question stands… can someone please restate the logic behind the conclusion that there are no fundamental rights at stake in this case?

I’ll wait.

We had that discussion all day yesterday. It’s a stupid argument but Alito says there is no right to abortion because it wasn’t acknowledged as a right in most of history. Literally, not “deeply rooted in history.” He’s actually wrong about that. Somehow, he believes there can be no new or expanded recognition of rights that previously were denied. So since he says there is no right to abortion, he says states are allowed to do whatever they want to do to restrict abortion.

What is listed in the constitution as "fundamental rights" that are "deeply rooted in history" other than those listed in the bill of rights? If other "rights" are not fundamental and not rooted in history then I guess we can just get rid of those too right?

Life, liberty and property—all of which are implicated if abortion is criminalized. But you know, apparently not for women.