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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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...

Nah, they'll say that it was your choice to get pregnant. I guess that could be the basis for challenging a law that doesn't include exceptions for rape or life-threatening complications. (IANAL)

[Anonymous]

Alito’s legal reasoning should terrify conservatives. It basically would allow very strict gun regulation or bans, removal of rights for corporations to have standing, protecting donations as speech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alito’s legal reasoning should terrify conservatives. It basically would allow very strict gun regulation or bans, removal of rights for corporations to have standing, protecting donations as speech.

Except he says that this applies only to abortion - and we know that it of course does not, but it will be used to strip us of our rights while letting conservatives keep all the guns they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

Nah, they'll say that it was your choice to get pregnant. I guess that could be the basis for challenging a law that doesn't include exceptions for rape or life-threatening complications. (IANAL)

Well, with Texas's vigilante laws, I think you could sue a third-party that prevents you from seeking an abortion in a state where it is legal...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a leftist death porn fantasy. Not even a Catholic hospital would refuse surgery in this case And no, the Irish case is not a good example because it was much more complicated in that their NHS can’t treat septicemia well

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a leftist death porn fantasy. Not even a Catholic hospital would refuse surgery in this case And no, the Irish case is not a good example because it was much more complicated in that their NHS can’t treat septicemia well

No, it's just a fact in whatever backward countries have abortion bans. Doctors hesitate, and women die.

That's the right's porn death fantasy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a leftist death porn fantasy. Not even a Catholic hospital would refuse surgery in this case And no, the Irish case is not a good example because it was much more complicated in that their NHS can’t treat septicemia well

Dp- “you are unhinged thinking we will storm the capitol”
“ you’re just being hysterical thinking Roe is going to be overturned”
“ The bills we are sponsoring outlawing abortion of ectopic pregnancy at the state level won’t pass”


We don’t believe you anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a leftist death porn fantasy. Not even a Catholic hospital would refuse surgery in this case And no, the Irish case is not a good example because it was much more complicated in that their NHS can’t treat septicemia well

No, the gig is up, it's time for use "right-to-lifters" to admit that we get ourselves off on images of poor women of color dying horrible deaths. We've been doing it since the 1620s...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a leftist death porn fantasy. Not even a Catholic hospital would refuse surgery in this case And no, the Irish case is not a good example because it was much more complicated in that their NHS can’t treat septicemia well

Dp- “you are unhinged thinking we will storm the capitol”
“ you’re just being hysterical thinking Roe is going to be overturned”
“ The bills we are sponsoring outlawing abortion of ectopic pregnancy at the state level won’t pass”


We don’t believe you anymore.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alito’s legal reasoning should terrify conservatives. It basically would allow very strict gun regulation or bans, removal of rights for corporations to have standing, protecting donations as speech.

Except he says that this applies only to abortion - and we know that it of course does not, but it will be used to strip us of our rights while letting conservatives keep all the guns they want.

Every jurist, every first year law student or heck every person who watched Law and Order knows that his statement that this only applies to abortion isn’t binding because his rationale and reasoning for overturning the 50 year precedent is not specific to abortion. The reasoning he lays out applies to hundreds of decisions. The lasting result of his decision prevails is that stare decisis is no longer a legal precedent. This is extraordinarily destructive to the legal system. Alito’s draft is a political position not a legal position which is shocking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alito’s legal reasoning should terrify conservatives. It basically would allow very strict gun regulation or bans, removal of rights for corporations to have standing, protecting donations as speech.

Except he says that this applies only to abortion - and we know that it of course does not, but it will be used to strip us of our rights while letting conservatives keep all the guns they want.

Every jurist, every first year law student or heck every person who watched Law and Order knows that his statement that this only applies to abortion isn’t binding because his rationale and reasoning for overturning the 50 year precedent is not specific to abortion. The reasoning he lays out applies to hundreds of decisions. The lasting result of his decision prevails is that stare decisis is no longer a legal precedent. This is extraordinarily destructive to the legal system. Alito’s draft is a political position not a legal position which is shocking.

As a Law & Order viewer, I agree. I can’t wait to go after guns!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alito’s legal reasoning should terrify conservatives. It basically would allow very strict gun regulation or bans, removal of rights for corporations to have standing, protecting donations as speech.

When they stopped Garland from being considered, they did not care to reverse their position for Amy. What makes you think they care about consistency in deliberation? Nothing scares GOP/conservatives because they have SC justices in their pocket, they have no fear of losing elections since they have gerrymandering figured out and they also have bought the "moderate" democrats.


As a country we are going downhill. In another decade our country will be a fascist country. This should scare the heck out of most non-GOP-conservatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alito’s legal reasoning should terrify conservatives. It basically would allow very strict gun regulation or bans, removal of rights for corporations to have standing, protecting donations as speech.

Well in CA they ruled you can sell someone under 21 an automatic rifle so there is that.
Dems NEED to allow civil suits against gun owners.
You know your neighbor did not take the safety course? Sue
You know he does not keep his gun locked? Sue
You know he seems mentally unwell? Sue to get the guns taken away adn get some cash too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a leftist death porn fantasy. Not even a Catholic hospital would refuse surgery in this case And no, the Irish case is not a good example because it was much more complicated in that their NHS can’t treat septicemia well

A Catholic hospital might not refuse surgery to amputate a Fallopian tube, but it just might refuse to give a woman medications to terminate an ectopic pregnancy rather than cutting out the tube, even if it is safe to do so and the woman prefers to preserve her fertility. Because in Catholic doctrine, the surgery is not a direct abortion. You are removing the tube and the embryo's death is a byproduct of that. But giving a woman medication that ends a pregnancy is a direct target and therefore a no-no.

Either you were aware of that but think the surgery is a fine alternative to medical termination, no matter whether that affects a woman's future fertility, or else you were unaware of that nuance and need to do some more reading up on what Church doctrine says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a leftist death porn fantasy. Not even a Catholic hospital would refuse surgery in this case And no, the Irish case is not a good example because it was much more complicated in that their NHS can’t treat septicemia well

Id like some more information on the underlined- you need to be able to back that statement up and people are just glossing over it.

The "Irish case" as you refer to it has multiple notes where the deceased and her husband asked for termination and were told they cant until there is no fetal heartbeat unless the life of the mother is at risk. https://www.thejournal.ie/eighth-amendment-4-3977441-Apr2018/ Apparently you needed to be bleeding out but then it remains how many liters of blood do you need to lose before your life is at risk? is that something the states elected representatives get to determine? and you do know that blood liters are not consistent among individuals?