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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems the Conservatives are leaking worse than an old lady’s bladder:


https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/11/alito-abortion-draft-opinion-roe-00031648?_amp=true

Where are those right wing posters calling for the leakers to be disbarred again? Haven’t heard from them in a few days.

Dang. They are truly disgusting.

Of those rulings, the Obamacare one ruffled the most feathers because Roberts reportedly reversed his position days before the decision was announced, ultimately voting to find the law constitutional.

“There is a price to be paid for what he did. Everybody remembers it,” said an attorney close to several conservative justices, who was granted anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the court’s arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they want girl 16 years possibly younger to carry a baby to term and become his mother. Will these same girls also be able to get home mortgages loans, by cars and get jobs that aren't covered by child labor laws so they can support their new family? What about the boys home pregnant at them? Can they also do the same? Can an 18-year-old go get a mortgage now?

Two questions:
When do you believe human life begins?
Do you believe a woman’s legal right to have an abortion outweighs a human life?
Do you believe a court of nine justices should decide the legal rights on this or the people via their elected officials?

Those are the essential questions in all of this. Let’s not muddy the water with scenarios of dangerous (health) pregnancies and rape victims and fantasies about Handmaids Tale and misogyny fears. Let’s focus on women that willingly choose to have sex (regardless of their income or race) and the subsequent choice when an unwanted pregnancy ensues. When does life begin and therefore when does that choice become akin to murder?

So as not to be a hypocrite, I’ll provide my answers.
Human life begins when the unborn human can reasonably sustain life on its own without its mother outside the womb. This may vary from individual to individual, but science generally puts this at the end of the second trimester.
I believe a right to have an abortion after human life begins does not outweigh human life.
I believe this should be put to vote and made law either by each of the 50 states or by the federal legislature.

I also believe this is what the majority of Americans believe, but once again the extreme views on either side of this argument are the tails wagging both political party’s and media soundbite’s dogs. Therefore, spending less time on complaining about SCOTUS and more time lobbying Congress regarding your beliefs would be a more effective use of your time.

Any health decision should be made between the doctor and their patient. If you don't want to have an abortion, that is your business. What is not your business is anyone else's situation. You do not have the right to project your morals and choices on to others, just like others do not have the right to project them on to you.

Everything else is noise.

You and the other prior respondents to my question have avoided the question. You’ve created dumb analogies. But based on your answers, you think a woman’s body includes the life inside it, always until birth and that it is the doctor and the patients choice. Unfortunately the one patient you’re not considering is the unborn child. You conveniently forget about that being. I believe that once the child is viable (again end of 2nd trimester) there are three patients and a fourth interested party (the father) that jointly represents the rights of that viable child.

Prior to that point, I agree that a woman can decide whatever they want. Why are you so opposed to that point of view? What do you equate this to slavery and privacy rights? It simply isn’t equatable given the third life involved. Or do you not care about that child or do you think it’s yours, like property for you to destroy as you wish?

Why do you keep ignoring that viability was the standard prior to Alito et al?

I don’t. You’re assuming too much.

[Anonymous]

Right wingers are all in on the enslavement of women. Who’s still trying to claim with a straight face that the GOP isn’t extremist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And now Alito and Thomas are openly threatening the potential defectors through their leaks:
“There is a price to be paid for what he did. Everybody remembers it,” said an attorney close to several conservative justices, who was granted anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the court’s arguments."https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/11/alito-abortion-draft-opinion-roe-00031648

I welcome all the GOP outrage about Alito's continued leaking.

Where are all the outraged republicans? Alito is here leaking to Politico and threatening his fellow justices. I thought you were all so very concerned with the sanctity of the court and its process.

People were getting too close to the leaker and it was going to blow up their arguments. So they’re pretending none of this happened at all, not the leak, not the decision that makes women slaves of the state with one stroke, none of it.

[Anonymous]

How can you use my body against my will?
I just don't get how this is not a right to life.
There are many amendments which state that power can NOT be taken away from the people unless the state has a compelling reason to do so. A bunch of old white men have never been compelling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can you use my body against my will?
I just don't get how this is not a right to life.
There are many amendments which state that power can NOT be taken away from the people unless the state has a compelling reason to do so. A bunch of old white men have never been compelling.

Black people were literally 3/5 people according to the Constitution. So there is precedent and since that gross old timey world is what the GOP wants and they bought themselves a court…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right wingers are all in on the enslavement of women. Who’s still trying to claim with a straight face that the GOP isn’t extremist?

Wow - I didn’t realize there were so few women Senators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right wingers are all in on the enslavement of women. Who’s still trying to claim with a straight face that the GOP isn’t extremist?

Wow - I didn’t realize there were so few women Senators.

What did you think when half of all senators are Rs right now? They are all white men except for 2 women and a token minority.
That leaves the 50 Dems to have 22 of them i believe. So about a QUARTER even though women make up over 50% of the US population.

[Anonymous]

We have a misrepresentative democracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right wingers are all in on the enslavement of women. Who’s still trying to claim with a straight face that the GOP isn’t extremist?

Why is a male expressing an opinion on a women's issue? He should STFU and remain quiet, by his own standards.

[Anonymous]

if Dem men abstained from voting that gives all of the white old R men MORE power.
We need to vote them the heck out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can you use my body against my will?
I just don't get how this is not a right to life.
There are many amendments which state that power can NOT be taken away from the people unless the state has a compelling reason to do so. A bunch of old white men have never been compelling.

The unborn child is a pretty compelling reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you use my body against my will?
I just don't get how this is not a right to life.
There are many amendments which state that power can NOT be taken away from the people unless the state has a compelling reason to do so. A bunch of old white men have never been compelling.

The unborn child is a pretty compelling reason.

What unborn 'child'? The sac of cells in my fallopian tube that will cause it to rupture is NOT a child honey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you use my body against my will?
I just don't get how this is not a right to life.
There are many amendments which state that power can NOT be taken away from the people unless the state has a compelling reason to do so. A bunch of old white men have never been compelling.

The unborn child is a pretty compelling reason.

What compensation will you/state be putting forward as hazard pay for risk of life via compelled surrogacy? 500,000? A million? Now they we know more about the risks of childbirth and the paid market for surrogacy, the state should be prepared for lawsuits...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can you use my body against my will?
I just don't get how this is not a right to life.
There are many amendments which state that power can NOT be taken away from the people unless the state has a compelling reason to do so. A bunch of old white men have never been compelling.

This is why so much abortion law rests on viability and/or the definition of when life begins. The compelling interest question is because a potential life is involved.

That being said, I think that the Alito draft is much more radical in that it creates an extremely narrow definition of what rights are guaranteed by the US Constitution. It's possible that many of the bills that will go into affect if Roe is overturned will be successfully challenged in state supreme courts...but it'll be a state-by-state question. I have no idea what happens if a federal ban gets passed and a state supreme court says it violates the state constitution. I think it reverts back to SCOTUS.