“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: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.

Yeah but those backward white states will keep their same amount of senators and representatives while the representatives on the coast will keep representing millions and millions of people instead of the 300 that Montana does

The key is we need to privatize welfare and only provide it to blue states. Privately fund people of color to move out of red states. And watch them burn under Republican policies.

[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

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.

Animals don't ask for or give consent to mate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The key is we need to privatize welfare and only provide it to blue states. Privately fund people of color to move out of red states. And watch them burn under Republican policies.

It's getting hard to tell if these are legitimate leftists who have become a parody of themselves or right wing trolls.

Literally no difference between the two at this point.

[Anonymous]

Expand the court. Polling at 55% Chancery okay.s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow it's almost like letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Who could have foreseen such a obvious turn of events aside from anyone with any hint of pattern recognition whatsoever.

If decide to let judges legislate from the bench, they will inevitably do so in a way that you don't agree with.

Roe didn’t legislate any rights away. Nice try.

Did you even read what you quoted? Here, let me bold the relevant section for you.

letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow it's almost like letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Who could have foreseen such a obvious turn of events aside from anyone with any hint of pattern recognition whatsoever.

If decide to let judges legislate from the bench, they will inevitably do so in a way that you don't agree with.

Roe didn’t legislate any rights away. Nice try.

Did you even read what you quoted? Here, let me bold the relevant section for you.

letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Yes I did. And I don’t believe Roe created any law. It preserved the rights of women to access healthcare with limitations pursuant to the interest of the state. In my opinion, the state interest cited in Roe was BS. But they didn’t legislate from the bench.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow it's almost like letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Who could have foreseen such a obvious turn of events aside from anyone with any hint of pattern recognition whatsoever.

If decide to let judges legislate from the bench, they will inevitably do so in a way that you don't agree with.

Roe didn’t legislate any rights away. Nice try.

Did you even read what you quoted? Here, let me bold the relevant section for you.

letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Yes I did. And I don’t believe Roe created any law. It preserved the rights of women to access healthcare with limitations pursuant to the interest of the state. In my opinion, the state interest cited in Roe was BS. But they didn’t legislate from the bench.

There was no 'right' to abortion before the justices created it. Yes, they were legislating from the bench. Yes, they're doing it again right now.

You're upset because they're legislating from the bench in a way you don't agree with, but you shouldn't hide behind that emotion with lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow it's almost like letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Who could have foreseen such a obvious turn of events aside from anyone with any hint of pattern recognition whatsoever.

If decide to let judges legislate from the bench, they will inevitably do so in a way that you don't agree with.

Roe didn’t legislate any rights away. Nice try.

Did you even read what you quoted? Here, let me bold the relevant section for you.

letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Yes I did. And I don’t believe Roe created any law. It preserved the rights of women to access healthcare with limitations pursuant to the interest of the state. In my opinion, the state interest cited in Roe was BS. But they didn’t legislate from the bench.

There was no 'right' to abortion before the justices created it. Yes, they were legislating from the bench. Yes, they're doing it again right now.

You're upset because they're legislating from the bench in a way you don't agree with, but you shouldn't hide behind that emotion with lies.

There was no right for black kids to go to public schools with white kids before the justices created it.
There was no right for black people to marry white people before the justices created it.
There was no right for people to use birth control before the justices created it.
There was no right for parents to send their kids to private schools before the justices created it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow it's almost like letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Who could have foreseen such a obvious turn of events aside from anyone with any hint of pattern recognition whatsoever.

If decide to let judges legislate from the bench, they will inevitably do so in a way that you don't agree with.

Roe didn’t legislate any rights away. Nice try.

Did you even read what you quoted? Here, let me bold the relevant section for you.

letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Yes I did. And I don’t believe Roe created any law. It preserved the rights of women to access healthcare with limitations pursuant to the interest of the state. In my opinion, the state interest cited in Roe was BS. But they didn’t legislate from the bench.

There was no 'right' to abortion before the justices created it. Yes, they were legislating from the bench. Yes, they're doing it again right now.

You're upset because they're legislating from the bench in a way you don't agree with, but you shouldn't hide behind that emotion with lies.

Wrong. reproductive freedom is fundamental. Show me any coherent argument suggesting that the constitution wasn’t meant to protect that freedom. We have the right to life and liberty, and restricting healthcare infringes upon those rights. Must meet strict scrutiny. This court tries to take the easy way out of that test by just erasing rights. It’s stunningly evil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow it's almost like letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Who could have foreseen such a obvious turn of events aside from anyone with any hint of pattern recognition whatsoever.

If decide to let judges legislate from the bench, they will inevitably do so in a way that you don't agree with.

Roe didn’t legislate any rights away. Nice try.

Did you even read what you quoted? Here, let me bold the relevant section for you.

letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Yes I did. And I don’t believe Roe created any law. It preserved the rights of women to access healthcare with limitations pursuant to the interest of the state. In my opinion, the state interest cited in Roe was BS. But they didn’t legislate from the bench.

There was no 'right' to abortion before the justices created it. Yes, they were legislating from the bench. Yes, they're doing it again right now.

You're upset because they're legislating from the bench in a way you don't agree with, but you shouldn't hide behind that emotion with lies.

There was no right for black kids to go to public schools with white kids before the justices created it.
There was no right for black people to marry white people before the justices created it.
There was no right for people to use birth control before the justices created it.
There was no right for parents to send their kids to private schools before the justices created it.

Correct on the latter two, though later amendments mean your first two statements are now incorrect, even if the 14th amendment is still ignored on a whim to this day (see: affirmative action, also known as state sanctioned racial discrimination). Which is why it's equally correct that justices can take them away on a whim.

This is why we have a legislative branch and an amendment process.

[Anonymous]

About the arguments I thought they would make or not upholding roe.... I never thought they would make the argument that a woman isn't even really a person with rights.
If you never had rights, you never will according to their logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow it's almost like letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Who could have foreseen such a obvious turn of events aside from anyone with any hint of pattern recognition whatsoever.

If decide to let judges legislate from the bench, they will inevitably do so in a way that you don't agree with.

Roe didn’t legislate any rights away. Nice try.

Did you even read what you quoted? Here, let me bold the relevant section for you.

letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Yes I did. And I don’t believe Roe created any law. It preserved the rights of women to access healthcare with limitations pursuant to the interest of the state. In my opinion, the state interest cited in Roe was BS. But they didn’t legislate from the bench.

There was no 'right' to abortion before the justices created it. Yes, they were legislating from the bench. Yes, they're doing it again right now.

You're upset because they're legislating from the bench in a way you don't agree with, but you shouldn't hide behind that emotion with lies.

There was no right for black kids to go to public schools with white kids before the justices created it.
There was no right for black people to marry white people before the justices created it.
There was no right for people to use birth control before the justices created it.
There was no right for parents to send their kids to private schools before the justices created it.

Correct on the latter two, though later amendments mean your first two statements are now incorrect, even if the 14th amendment is still ignored on a whim to this day (see: affirmative action, also known as state sanctioned racial discrimination). Which is why it's equally correct that justices can take them away on a whim.

This is why we have a legislative branch and an amendment process.

No it’s not. It is why we have the 14th amendment. Any law infringing upon fundamental rights must meet strict scrutiny. The opinion here only uses a rational basis test. It’s absolute hogwash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Newsflash: The majority of Amazon's 1M+ employees are not "professionals".

Also dogwhistle. Many professional people have abortions. How ridiculous.

Many married women have abortions, too, and the pregnancies were not a result of affairs or rapes, but just oops babies, and they cannot afford to take care of another child.

That was my mom, at the age of 46, dad was 55. This was going to be a high risk pregnancy to begin with. So, they terminated the pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow it's almost like letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Who could have foreseen such a obvious turn of events aside from anyone with any hint of pattern recognition whatsoever.

If decide to let judges legislate from the bench, they will inevitably do so in a way that you don't agree with.

Roe didn’t legislate any rights away. Nice try.

Did you even read what you quoted? Here, let me bold the relevant section for you.

letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Yes I did. And I don’t believe Roe created any law. It preserved the rights of women to access healthcare with limitations pursuant to the interest of the state. In my opinion, the state interest cited in Roe was BS. But they didn’t legislate from the bench.

There was no 'right' to abortion before the justices created it. Yes, they were legislating from the bench. Yes, they're doing it again right now.

You're upset because they're legislating from the bench in a way you don't agree with, but you shouldn't hide behind that emotion with lies.

There was no right for black kids to go to public schools with white kids before the justices created it.
There was no right for black people to marry white people before the justices created it.
There was no right for people to use birth control before the justices created it.
There was no right for parents to send their kids to private schools before the justices created it.

Correct on the latter two, though later amendments mean your first two statements are now incorrect, even if the 14th amendment is still ignored on a whim to this day (see: affirmative action, also known as state sanctioned racial discrimination). Which is why it's equally correct that justices can take them away on a whim.

This is why we have a legislative branch and an amendment process.

No it’s not. It is why we have the 14th amendment. Any law infringing upon fundamental rights must meet strict scrutiny. The opinion here only uses a rational basis test. It’s absolute hogwash.

"Strict scrutiny" is a ridiculous concept that is discarded at the whims of judges.

Again, we let them legislate from the bench and that's precisely what's happening now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Newsflash: The majority of Amazon's 1M+ employees are not "professionals".

Also dogwhistle. Many professional people have abortions. How ridiculous.

Many married women have abortions, too, and the pregnancies were not a result of affairs or rapes, but just oops babies, and they cannot afford to take care of another child.

That was my mom, at the age of 46, dad was 55. This was going to be a high risk pregnancy to begin with. So, they terminated the pregnancy.

Yep. This is a sleeping giant. More families need to be open about this.