“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: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.

The 14th amendment was around for decades before SCOTUS recognized these rights.
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]

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.

The 14th amendment was around for decades before SCOTUS recognized these rights.

[Anonymous]

We must organize a 50 million woman march. One million women marching on governor's of each state protesting over turning Roe v Wade. Our great grandmothers marched to get us the vote and we are going to to do the same. Let's get started ladies!

[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.

agreed, not that big of a deal.

I’m concerned states will restrict a woman’s ability to cross state lines.

Why?

Not PP but maybe because Missouri already passed a law barring leaving the state to get an abortion?

Not to mention, travel is not protected under the constitution, so it would be upheld by the same supremes.

That's not true. The Commerce clause essentially states that if citizens are trying to use businesses and services in another state, that a state cannot impede them from crossing state lines to use those services. Only the federal government can put restrictions on interstate commerce. A woman who is paying for services in another state cannot be barred from traveling to that state to use those services. A state that does this is violating the Commerce clause of the US Constitution.

[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.

agreed, not that big of a deal.

I’m concerned states will restrict a woman’s ability to cross state lines.

Why?

Not PP but maybe because Missouri already passed a law barring leaving the state to get an abortion?

Not to mention, travel is not protected under the constitution, so it would be upheld by the same supremes.

That's not true. The Commerce clause essentially states that if citizens are trying to use businesses and services in another state, that a state cannot impede them from crossing state lines to use those services. Only the federal government can put restrictions on interstate commerce. A woman who is paying for services in another state cannot be barred from traveling to that state to use those services. A state that does this is violating the Commerce clause of the US Constitution.

The text of the commerce clause doesn't say anything remotely like that. There is a doctrine called the negative commerce clause that says something like that, but it's not anywhere in the actual text.

[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.

The 14th amendment was around for decades before SCOTUS recognized these rights.

That was his part of their point.

[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?

I wonder though, does the problem really go away with a federal law? What’s to stop a future republican president/house/senate from overturning it? It would just be an endless back and forth.

[Anonymous]

I have a feeling republicans are just going to f@#$ around and find out on this one.

Just wait till all those unwanted babies and rape babies and incest babies and disabled babies and babies with almost no prenatal care turn 18. Either massive crime wave, political revolution or both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a feeling republicans are just going to f@#$ around and find out on this one.

Just wait till all those unwanted babies and rape babies and incest babies and disabled babies and babies with almost no prenatal care turn 18. Either massive crime wave, political revolution or both.

Do you think they care? (Hint: they do not).

[Anonymous]

Are there enough states to amend the constitution on this issue? Just amend it!

[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?

I wonder though, does the problem really go away with a federal law? What’s to stop a future republican president/house/senate from overturning it? It would just be an endless back and forth.

Which is why the GOP needs to be taken down, beaten to a pulp, composted and future students need to be taught about its ugliness as German students are taught about the Nazis. The GOP level of misogyny and dehumanizing women was common enough a hundred years ago and before, but now? It’s ridiculous. Absolutely horrifying.

And that women keep defending it and voting for their own rights to be taken away? Nauseating.

[Anonymous]

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

You are kidding right because I have quite a few friends who had had "oops babies" in their late 30's early 40s. all "professional" women.

Last gyn apt, my doc asked me what bcp I was using. She casually mentioned that women in their 40s follow closely behind teenagers in her practice as far as unwanted pregnancies go.

[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.

agreed, not that big of a deal.

I’m concerned states will restrict a woman’s ability to cross state lines.

Why?

Not PP but maybe because Missouri already passed a law barring leaving the state to get an abortion?

Not to mention, travel is not protected under the constitution, so it would be upheld by the same supremes.

That's not true. The Commerce clause essentially states that if citizens are trying to use businesses and services in another state, that a state cannot impede them from crossing state lines to use those services. Only the federal government can put restrictions on interstate commerce. A woman who is paying for services in another state cannot be barred from traveling to that state to use those services. A state that does this is violating the Commerce clause of the US Constitution.

The text of the commerce clause doesn't say anything remotely like that. There is a doctrine called the negative commerce clause that says something like that, but it's not anywhere in the actual text.

Perhaps not, but as long as this decision doesn't completely throw out stare decesis then it should cover it. Look here at the discussion about commerce and interstate regulation that Chief Justice Marshall used in Gibbons v. Ogden to see where there is precedence to suggest that the states do not have the power to restrict a person traveling interstate for commercial reasons.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C3-1-2/ALDE_00001058/

There was a long period in the Court's history when a majority of the Justices, seeking to curb the regulatory powers of the Federal Government by various means, held that certain things were not encompassed by the Commerce Clause because they were neither interstate commerce nor bore a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce. Thus, at one time, the Court held that mining or manufacturing, even when the product would move in interstate commerce, was not reachable under the Commerce Clause;11 it held insurance transactions carried on across state lines not to be commerce,12 and that exhibitions of baseball between professional teams that travel from state to state were not in commerce.13 Similarly, it held that the Commerce Clause was not applicable to the making of contracts for the insertion of advertisements in periodicals in another state14 or to the making of contracts for personal services to be rendered in another state.15

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.16 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are trade and capable of becoming interstate commerce;17 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.18 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,19 the rationales by which manufacturing,20 mining,21 business transactions,22 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power.

Among the Several States
Continuing in Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice Marshall observed that the phrase among the several States was not one which would probably have been selected to indicate the completely interior traffic of a state. It must therefore have been selected to exclude the exclusively internal commerce of a state. Although, of course, the phrase may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more states than one, it is obvious that [c]ommerce among the states, cannot stop at the external boundary line of each state, but may be introduced into the interior. The Chief Justice then succinctly stated the rule, which, though restricted in some periods, continues to govern the interpretation of the clause. The genius and character of the whole government seem to be, that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the states generally; but not to those which are completely within a particular state, which do not affect other states, and with which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government.23

So, there is argument that Chief Justice Marshall's ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden should cover this situation, where women are traveling to another state for commerce purchases, e.g. using a service provided by a business in another state. Now, there may be a conflict for PP if they need to start charging for the services to qualify as commerce but then they lose their 501(c)3 status because they are charging for such services. But any clinic that charges for their services and does not get money from the federal government for that purpose should qualify as interstate commerce and be protected from restrictive state laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a feeling republicans are just going to f@#$ around and find out on this one.

Just wait till all those unwanted babies and rape babies and incest babies and disabled babies and babies with almost no prenatal care turn 18. Either massive crime wave, political revolution or both.

Do you think they care? (Hint: they do not).

No. Because most of them will die of old age before this happens.

Conservatives don't care what happens to anyone else, event their own mothers and sisters, and it's obvious.

I made a vow to myself that I would out the 4 conservative / republican women I know who had abortions if Roe V. Wade was overturned.

[Anonymous]

Who leaked it? A clerk? From which Justice?