Is everyone just stunned that we’ve stepped back 50 years in time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rapist now get to pick the mother of their children

Christ - that’s some dark phrasing. And 100% true.

100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously everyone is not stunned.

But I'm stunned that some liberals are still shocked that the majority doesn't always agree with everything they stand for. I'm shocked that some liberals think religious people shouldn't vote in accordance with their own values but liberals should be free to vote in accordance with theirs. I'm shocked that whenever a political party doesn't get it's way there's talk of receding and revolution. I'm shocked that so many people fall for Russian [sic] propoganda designed to separate us so we will more easily fall. But mostly I'm shocked at how so many people live in their own political bubble that they fool themselves into thinking "everyone" thinks the same as they do when in reality it's just the 10-20 people they hang around.

When you say "religious people" you are excluding Americans that are religious and practice religions outside of Christianity. You do realize that Buddhism, Hinduism,
Islam, Judaism, and other religions practiced here do have more open views on abortion, and don't necessarily outlaw or forbid them as Christians have done.

Perhaps it's you that needs expand your bubble and realize that religion in America is not limited to Christianity. Although, based on this Supreme Court, that no longer seems the case.

You are wrong. When I wrote religious people, I meant religious people.

Jews aren't religious? Or do you believe that they have to vote in line with Christianity, instead of Jewish beliefs?

Many muslims do not support abortion especially after 120 days. Generally Hindus do not suppprt abortion either. Buddhism actually teaches away from abortion though many Buddhists seem to support it. On the flip side many liberal christians support abortion-christians are not monolithic on this. And many individual jews do not support it-they are not monolithic either. Also abortion is not the ony issue. Regardless everyone has a right to vote in accordance with their own values- whether those values stem from their faith or not, and whether their values align with those of the liberal platform or not.

https://religionunplugged.com/news/2022/6/24/what-six-american-religious-sub-groups-think-about-abortion
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/21/where-major-religious-groups-stand-on-abortion/

Yeah, no. You presented the religious and liberals as two separate groups, as if liberals cannot be religious, and the religious cannot be liberal.

Bullsh!t.

The post clearly says "some liberals". And it is clear from the many liberals bashing christianity and other religions on this forum that some liberals think religious people should only vote in accordance with their own values if their values are in alignment with the liberal platform.

I’m a liberal. I’m religious. Christian, actually. I bash Christianists that scorn learning, science and Jesus’s words. I deplore fundamentalism and extremism, and it seems that’s all that regressives can be these days.

Today’s Christianists seem to have lost their humanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously everyone is not stunned.

But I'm stunned that some liberals are still shocked that the majority doesn't always agree with everything they stand for. 1. I'm shocked that some liberals think religious people shouldn't vote in accordance with their own values but liberals should be free to vote in accordance with theirs. 2. I'm shocked that whenever a political party doesn't get it's way there's talk of receding and revolution. I'm shocked that 3. so many people fall for Russian propoganda designed to separate us so we will more easily fall. But mostly I'm shocked at how so many people live in their own political bubble that they fool themselves into thinking "everyone" thinks the same as they do when in reality it's just the 10-20 people they hang around.

1. False. Shall we name the liberal, religious presidents?
2. If you’re speaking of your party here. You might want to retract this statement.
3. Who now is falling for Russian propoganda, QAnon, Proud Boys, Oathkeepers?

You are assuming too much about me. I never said I was a republican. But you can add far left dooms day extremists and revolutionists to #3. That's what is so frightening. They are on both sides of the aisle. And so many are falling for it as if they all failed history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously everyone is not stunned.

But I'm stunned that some liberals are still shocked that the majority doesn't always agree with everything they stand for. I'm shocked that some liberals think religious people shouldn't vote in accordance with their own values but liberals should be free to vote in accordance with theirs. I'm shocked that whenever a political party doesn't get it's way there's talk of receding and revolution. I'm shocked that so many people fall for Russian [sic] propoganda designed to separate us so we will more easily fall. But mostly I'm shocked at how so many people live in their own political bubble that they fool themselves into thinking "everyone" thinks the same as they do when in reality it's just the 10-20 people they hang around.

When you say "religious people" you are excluding Americans that are religious and practice religions outside of Christianity. You do realize that Buddhism, Hinduism,
Islam, Judaism, and other religions practiced here do have more open views on abortion, and don't necessarily outlaw or forbid them as Christians have done.

Perhaps it's you that needs expand your bubble and realize that religion in America is not limited to Christianity. Although, based on this Supreme Court, that no longer seems the case.

You are wrong. When I wrote religious people, I meant religious people.

Jews aren't religious? Or do you believe that they have to vote in line with Christianity, instead of Jewish beliefs?

Many muslims do not support abortion especially after 120 days. Generally Hindus do not suppprt abortion either. Buddhism actually teaches away from abortion though many Buddhists seem to support it. On the flip side many liberal christians support abortion-christians are not monolithic on this. And many individual jews do not support it-they are not monolithic either. Also abortion is not the ony issue. Regardless everyone has a right to vote in accordance with their own values- whether those values stem from their faith or not, and whether their values align with those of the liberal platform or not.

https://religionunplugged.com/news/2022/6/24/what-six-american-religious-sub-groups-think-about-abortion
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/21/where-major-religious-groups-stand-on-abortion/

Yeah, no. You presented the religious and liberals as two separate groups, as if liberals cannot be religious, and the religious cannot be liberal.

Bullsh!t.

The post clearly says "some liberals". And it is clear from the many liberals bashing christianity and other religions on this forum that some liberals think religious people should only vote in accordance with their own values if their values are in alignment with the liberal platform.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is there just apathy? I cant tell.

Between abortion and the three recent Supreme Court cases siding with organized religion, it seems like we are just heading back to a time of superstition.

I mean really what the fk just happened? What is this?

I was here 50 years ago...in no way do I believe we have moved back.

BTW, siding with organized religion? Based on the rulings that is more than just a stretch.

You were here 50 years ago? Seems like your powers of critical reasoning have not improved with time.

Yes, obviously it’s pretty clear, based on this rulings, further erode or obfuscate the separation of church and state. Schools have free resign to throw prayers around wherever they want, you can put up a Christian nationalist flag on a state building now or a park, which apparently many nutty Americans would like to see these days, and religious schools can receive public funding to advance their nonsensical nonsense. Watch for more religion friendly decisions like these to come out. The silent majority of us, those who respect spirituality, but really aren’t that religious or into organized religion, get to watch as essentially Christofascists further mold the country in their image.

I mean I get it. Young people are too smart for all this crap. They honestly don’t care that much about church and that’s a shock to regressive everywhere. You’re doing your best to enshrine organized religion into law and it’s working. The problem is when more and more people just stop giving a fk about church, which they are, and these rulings will hopelessly advance, you all will just keep losing members and allow a more neutral form of governance and law to replace your terrible Supreme Court rulings.

Christianity has survived for approximately 2000 years, despite the opinions of people who think like you. It's not going away.

[Anonymous]

The Taliban of the West is drafting legislation to prevent women from crossing state lines to have an abortion. Like what are they going to do, have an Abortion Police that searches your uterus?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/abortion-state-lines/

[Anonymous]

92% of abortions are done for convenience

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is there just apathy? I cant tell.

Between abortion and the three recent Supreme Court cases siding with organized religion, it seems like we are just heading back to a time of superstition.

I mean really what the fk just happened? What is this?

I was here 50 years ago...in no way do I believe we have moved back.

BTW, siding with organized religion? Based on the rulings that is more than just a stretch.

You were here 50 years ago? Seems like your powers of critical reasoning have not improved with time.

Yes, obviously it’s pretty clear, based on this rulings, further erode or obfuscate the separation of church and state. Schools have free resign to throw prayers around wherever they want, you can put up a Christian nationalist flag on a state building now or a park, which apparently many nutty Americans would like to see these days, and religious schools can receive public funding to advance their nonsensical nonsense. Watch for more religion friendly decisions like these to come out. The silent majority of us, those who respect spirituality, but really aren’t that religious or into organized religion, get to watch as essentially Christofascists further mold the country in their image.

I mean I get it. Young people are too smart for all this crap. They honestly don’t care that much about church and that’s a shock to regressive everywhere. You’re doing your best to enshrine organized religion into law and it’s working. The problem is when more and more people just stop giving a fk about church, which they are, and these rulings will hopelessly advance, you all will just keep losing members and allow a more neutral form of governance and law to replace your terrible Supreme Court rulings.

When I was in school there were prayers offered over the pa system. Today?

This whole stirring up the pot is nothing more than an attempt to promote political agendas. And given the fact Justice Ginsberg questioned R v W as she did along the same lines as the ruling was handed down recently, along with all the other challenges and questions over the years, shows me that it was a slippery slope to begin with. If you read the history, the Washington Post had a very good write up about that recently, then you see that even in 1973 they had deep questions as to the actions they wanted to take but weren't certain of the foundation of the argument and the eventual outcome. One stark point was Blackman questioning when it stopped being a fetus and became a child. He felt after the first trimester that would be the case.

Back to the 50 year thing...my daughters and granddaughters are far better off, with greater protections and potential than was in place 50 years ago. And no way do I see a decision related to R v W being essentially handed back to the states changing that.

Well, the blood of all the women who will die is all over your hands. Human/civil rights should not depend on being the daughter/granddaughter of the privileged.

Nicely worded but reminds me of an empty pinata.

As to the last sentence, we have laws to cover that but alas we live in an imperfect nation.

Facile and false. We don’t have to laws cover anything and imperfect covers a whole host of sins. We are in a human/civil rights crisis. When the privileged sit on the sidelines and downplay the crisis we are facing - you are quite literally endangering women and girls. Arguendo, that’s why we are in this predicament in the first place. Everyone was too busy picking on HRC’s pantsuits and tsunamis to see this coming. Boomers and their helicoptered millennial children were too complacent to care.

[Anonymous]

How are we going backwards?
We have trans men swimming as females in ncaa races; a 15% non binary rate amongst white UMC adolescents; no exams policy in Hs and for college apps; we rename colleges, mountains, schools and parks from founders and explorers to a local minority name; and we have a federal reserve bank dishing out special rates, loans and economic goodies/policies to Blacks.

We be moving forward at 500 mph!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How are we going backwards?
We have trans men swimming as females in ncaa races; a 15% non binary rate amongst white UMC adolescents; no exams policy in Hs and for college apps; we rename colleges, mountains, schools and parks from founders and explorers to a local minority name; and we have a federal reserve bank dishing out special rates, loans and economic goodies/policies to Blacks.

We be moving forward at 500 mph!

Holy s!

White umc teens are 15% trans?

Wtf?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes but also scared for DD. 28 states are likely to restrict abortion in the coming months. Sure we are safe in Md but what if she wants to study in Florida or South Carolina or wherever else they are on the way to criminalizing abortion and perhaps even contraception? It Will like it college choices and future career advancement opportunities for many women who favor their freedom over other wise good college and career opportunities. Many women in some states will be forced to give birth to babies born of rape, incest and/ or domestic abuse. I don’t want Dd even studying in states that show such contempt for women’s (and often men’s) needs.

It is frightening that Republican politicians are even talking about monitoring period tracking apps and other online data to help prosecute young women. Who votes for these crazies? Period tracking apps are scrambling to anonymize user data to avoid abortion prosecution risks. Missouri already kept a spread sheet of menstrual cycles of women who visited the only planned parenthood in the state that provided abortion services. Hope the bill by Rep Sara Jacobs (Ca - D) to curb mass collection of reproductive data passes. Her bill would limit how much sexual health data thatvtech firms can collect, keep, utilize and disclose.

So I agree :- it is shocking that we are in a weird time where social rights for women have gone back decades and yet cutting edge modern technology can be wielded against them.

Which Republicans have even suggested this? We’ll wait while you lie and lie some more.

The Trump administration was tracking the periods of the migrant girls in their care and denying them abortions.
https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/scott-lloyd-admits-to-tracking-teens-menstruation
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-administration-denies-abortions-migrant-girls-using-same-tactics-state-ncna1019726

Never even heard of "Now This News" so I looked it up. How utterly unsurprising that you would quote an extreme left propaganda source.

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Overall, we rate NowThis News Questionable based on far-left bias, promotion of liberal propaganda and five verified failed fact checks.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/nowthis-news/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is there just apathy? I cant tell.

Between abortion and the three recent Supreme Court cases siding with organized religion, it seems like we are just heading back to a time of superstition.

I mean really what the fk just happened? What is this?

No not stunned. These are the correct decisions and should never have been made in the first place. Congress should have addresed abortion. They are the failure here. It was never a Consitutional protection. The religion stuff is right. Read the 1st amendment. Courts went sideways on this long ago.

Exactly. This is a job for Congress and the democratic process - good for the justices for recognizing this. They’re not there to legislate.

+1

Except that Roe has been the case law for 50 years, impacts millions of women, was supposedly settled. obviously, to a fascist, sending it to congress is a “good” idea, in the sense that anyone who understands legislation knows that it has no chance at becoming law. Also, this case opens up the door to end gay marriage and gay sex and all that other icky stuff Jesus doesn’t like apparently.

Actually, I'm one of the above posters and I would very much like to see abortion rights codified in law. But it most definitely was NOT "supposedly settled" - it's had dozens of challenges over the years. It's not the Supreme Court's place to legislate. This should have been a states' issue long ago. And it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

It was precedent that had been affirmed about two dozen times.

That means it was *challenged* two dozen times. The SC should not be in the business of legislating. Obviously, if the issue is that controversial, it needs to be sent to the states and dealt with democratically.

[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:Obviously everyone is not stunned.

But I'm stunned that some liberals are still shocked that the majority doesn't always agree with everything they stand for. I'm shocked that some liberals think religious people shouldn't vote in accordance with their own values but liberals should be free to vote in accordance with theirs. I'm shocked that whenever a political party doesn't get it's way there's talk of receding and revolution. I'm shocked that so many people fall for Russian propoganda designed to separate us so we will more easily fall. But mostly I'm shocked at how so many people live in their own political bubble that they fool themselves into thinking "everyone" thinks the same as they do when in reality it's just the 10-20 people they hang around.

I’m not shocked at all. But it’s fundamentally anti American to believe that you should impose Christianity on us. It’s literally Amendment numero uno.

Sincerely believing that abortion is infanticide and opposing it for that reason isn't imposing Christianity on anyone, stop making false equivalencies. I know non religious folk, and non Christians that are anti-abortion. There is nothing anti-American about being opposed to abortion on the grounds that one sincerely believes that it is infanticide - according to that perspective banning abortion has nothing to do with violating ones rights any more than banning murder does. If you are unable to empathize with or understand this perspective even if you think its fully wrong, and you have distilled all anti-abortion folks into only Southern, fundamentalist Christians who are literally out to violate women's rights because they get off on that, it is sad but it is not surprising given how divided this country is. Folks on the right do the same thing - view pro abortion folks as blood thirsty / heathen baby killers when in reality most pro abortion folks sincerely believe that it isn't killing a child and it is just a medical procedure and therefore not allowing it is a major rights violation. My point is, have some empathy and understanding for folks from different backgrounds with different life experiences -- although it is easy to fall into the nihilist view that half of your country men are evil and out to get you and trample on your rights, this isn't the actual reality. Most folks on both sides are good human beings who believe what they believe sincerely.

ake this from a fellow pro-choice person who possibly just has different life views / experiences than you -

You must have missed the case about the praying football coach pp. Now prayer is allowed at school events and participants can be forced to pray, as this coach's players were, or deal with the consequences. This is definitely imposing Christianity or other religions in public school. And we still have more decisions to come. Yipppee, American Taliban!

Op here. This is what I meant. There have been a slew of “religious freedom” cases in the last month. The Christian flag case, the state funded tuition case, now this praying at the 50 yard line. Also, abortion is up there. It’s clear these folks are injecting their religious views into these cases. They’ve eroded any semblance of a church vs state separation. Then you’ve got Boebert today saying that separation is stupid.

At the core, and distilling all your dismissive hand waving of these clearly evident facts, is that you’ve got this fired up, energized mass of conservatives and religious nuts who know they’re losing the culture war and so they do all these underhanded tricks, both politically and socially, to try and stymie social progress. They’re well mobilized and funded by churches etc.

You’ve got Mitch not letting democrats get their judges on the court, but instead putting on Fed Soc sponsored zealots. And look at Clarence thomas that psychopath with the nutty wife who is an insurrectionist. They know they’re losing in the court of public opinion. They know the church is bleeding members, but they’ll do anything ot takes, even Christian nationalism type of aggressive tactics, to try to desperately try to ensure they can shove religion and bad science and poor health policy (no abortion) down our throats.

All they’ve done is energize the enlightened and educated folks who are now deathly afraid their gay friends will lose their insurance benefits, or their wife will die from an easily preventable pregancy related condition that could have been properly addressed in a pre-Roe struck down era. They see that their contraception is at stake or that even gay sex could be criminalized. Or that, yes, interracial marriage which rests on the same sort of legal principle or unenumerated rights, could be tossed out by some out of touch, old school, regressive, zealot justices.

So don’t play coy. Don’t even act like you have a “majority” thats a joke. You just have cunning politicians and dedicated nut bags with church money behind them to help funds batsht right wing loonies to the court.

I think both sides of the political spectrum have had great victories thanks to the supreme court. Gay marriage for many on the religious right was seen as a disaster a few years ago. Today many on the center and left view this new abortion ruling equally as a disaster. In my opinion, the reason why we got to this point is because people who support abortion never gave it full support. Opinion polls often reveal over half the country in support of abortion. However, once the issue is disaggregated further (i.e abortion at xyz weeks) then you have all kind of opinions. Unless we reach a point where people who support abortion support it without any restrictions, the side that is against abortion (which is laser focused because they are a firm NO) will continue to win. The debate should be framed more toward women's rights to choose and nothing else. But then again the Democrats are too distracted with semantics and woke stuff (sorry for borrowing a right wing term here). Sadly as a man I can just say this is another evidence that the United States continues to be truly a men-dominated world. Some will quickly argue that women in the north are "free",but many of those men in the north are not giving abortion the full support it deserves. They will quickly say beyond xyz week they are against it. Why should they care about any cutoff? The cutoff needs to be taken out of discussion then you will truly have 2 camps. As long as that grey area is there it gives those against abortion an advantage.

And finally the country is simply broken. If we all come to this conclusion then we can actually begin to fix it. Some think that the fact that all our major cultural issues are being decided by SCOTUS as opposed to Congress as a sign of a working democracy. I beg to differ here.

While I agree with some of your points, I think it is very sexist to suggest women are monolithic in their stances on abortion. Many moderate and conservative women on both sides of the aisle are not in support of unrestricted abortion and some even support full bans. This is not just a male vs female issue. It's not just a religious issue or political party issue. It's a moral values issue. And as you pointed out, opinions vary widely on both sides when it comes to the morality of an elective abortion of a viable fetus.

And yet, people do not have the right to impose their version of morality on others.

People absolutely have the right to vote on issues. That is what happens in democracy. People don't agree. People vote. Majority rules. States that have liberal majorities will enact liberal laws. States with conservative majorities enact conservative laws. Such is the way of the constitution of these Great United States. Don't like it? Try China.

States that want to be slave states make slavery legal. Deal with it

As others have pointed out, abortion rights are not in the constitution. Thus it is an issue for the states. The 13th amendment prohibits slavery. Thus slavery is not a state issue.

So like…for 50 years…Supreme court justices disagreed w/ you. Then a freak show sexual predator became president and appointed an alcoholic and a cult member to the court. That along w/ an insurrectionist Justice now say it’s not in the constitution. So now you think you know it all?

Mmmkayyyy. Might makes right, right? Then just wait bc we’ll just get it back then.

DP. Totally unhinged word salad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:92% of abortions are done for convenience

It is NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS.

Unless you want to open your wallet and raise it yourself.

SO STFU.

[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:Obviously everyone is not stunned.

But I'm stunned that some liberals are still shocked that the majority doesn't always agree with everything they stand for. I'm shocked that some liberals think religious people shouldn't vote in accordance with their own values but liberals should be free to vote in accordance with theirs. I'm shocked that whenever a political party doesn't get it's way there's talk of receding and revolution. I'm shocked that so many people fall for Russian propoganda designed to separate us so we will more easily fall. But mostly I'm shocked at how so many people live in their own political bubble that they fool themselves into thinking "everyone" thinks the same as they do when in reality it's just the 10-20 people they hang around.

I’m not shocked at all. But it’s fundamentally anti American to believe that you should impose Christianity on us. It’s literally Amendment numero uno.

Sincerely believing that abortion is infanticide and opposing it for that reason isn't imposing Christianity on anyone, stop making false equivalencies. I know non religious folk, and non Christians that are anti-abortion. There is nothing anti-American about being opposed to abortion on the grounds that one sincerely believes that it is infanticide - according to that perspective banning abortion has nothing to do with violating ones rights any more than banning murder does. If you are unable to empathize with or understand this perspective even if you think its fully wrong, and you have distilled all anti-abortion folks into only Southern, fundamentalist Christians who are literally out to violate women's rights because they get off on that, it is sad but it is not surprising given how divided this country is. Folks on the right do the same thing - view pro abortion folks as blood thirsty / heathen baby killers when in reality most pro abortion folks sincerely believe that it isn't killing a child and it is just a medical procedure and therefore not allowing it is a major rights violation. My point is, have some empathy and understanding for folks from different backgrounds with different life experiences -- although it is easy to fall into the nihilist view that half of your country men are evil and out to get you and trample on your rights, this isn't the actual reality. Most folks on both sides are good human beings who believe what they believe sincerely.

ake this from a fellow pro-choice person who possibly just has different life views / experiences than you -

The Supreme Court didn’t rule that abortion is murder or even that it is wrong. They may believe that but the ruling is that no Constitutionally protected rights are involved so states are free to ban it or allow it or regulate it as they see fit.

They tossed aside precedent and stare decisis, lied in their confirmation, and are injecting religiously based jurisprudence into their rulings which will upend medical care for millions where it didn’t previously exist, but sure, it’s all so innocuous. I mean hey why get upset right? Lol.

DP. You can repeat this lie as much as you want, but no one lied. Period. Try acting like an adult.

It's not a lie, it's the truth.
- DP

Sorry, AOC. You’re wrong.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lying-gop-roe-wade-supreme-court/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/06/28/did-supreme-court-justices-lie-by-claiming-they-wouldnt-overturn-roe-v-wade-heres-what-they-actually-said/

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/scotus-verify/what-justices-gorsuch-barrett-kavanaugh-said-roe-v-wade-confirmation-hearings/536-cdc8cbaa-cf81-4db9-a861-05ea5fbcb05a

Yes, everybody knows they danced around the issue becayse they didn't have the integrity to outright state their intent. It's still less than straightforward, and deceptive. Susan Collins agrees.

So you admit: no one lied. Thank you and goodbye.

They sure didn't tell the truth.

Sure they did. In fact, this is referred to as The Ginsburg Rule/Standard. Educate yourself.

Under the so-called “Ginsburg Standard,” a nominee for the Supreme Court may withhold from commenting on topics or cases that could come up before the bench in the future.

The standard originated when Justice Ginsburg, during her confirmation hearings, declined to answer certain questions that she believed could come back before the Court in the future. For example, she did not comment on topics such as the right to bear arms, the death penalty and private school vouchers. A recent Supreme Court Nominee Responsiveness Study (“Responsiveness Study”) conducted by Lori Ringhand, Professor of Law at the University of Georgia, and Paul M. Collins Jr., Professor of Political Science and director of Legal Studies at the University of Massachusetts, found that Ginsburg refused to respond approximately 10% of the time.

Ginsburg is famous for her quote during the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on July 20, 1993, in which she stated: “A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”

While she declined in her hearings to talk about future cases, Ginsburg did address key issues during her hearings, including touchy topics ranging from abortion, to the right of privacy, to gender discrimination, to free speech. To this end, she was willing to comment on precedent, explained Margo Schlanger, a current professor at the University of Michigan Law School and former Ginsburg clerk. “So when she is asked about prior cases, she talks about her views in those cases. What she declined in her hearings to talk about was future cases.”

No, that's not what they did. They said quite a number of far more affirmative things than "I can't comment on it" - they said things like "it's the law of the land" "it should be respected" "it should be upheld" "no good Justice would overturn it" and so on. Watch the videos again. They most definitely misled the Senate.

You can twist their words as much as you want, but NONE of them said that a precedent couldn't be revisited. Even saying something is "settled law" merely acknowledges that it's a decision from the SC and it exists - but carries no significance beyond that. Precedents can - and have been - revisited and overturned. Deal with it.