“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:Fetuses are not "potential life", they are a separate living human being, scientifically speaking.

If they’ve never been alive outside the womb, they’re potential life. Under the law (which is what we’re discussing) babies aren’t granted the status of living person until they’re born alive. Besides, this draft opinion is not grounded in science.

Under which law(s)? You’re making stuff up now. They may not be citizens or registered persons, but doubtful there is a law that defines life. If there were a law, rulings like RvW wouldn’t be necessary. That’s the crux of the issue. Pass a law that clearly defines human life and what may be done legally “by others” to that human life at its various stages. Fetus, baby, toddler, teen, adult, senior, invalid, death bed patient, comatose patients, death row inmate, etc. then we can all stop being hypocrites.

Can a fetus get a social security number?
Is a man responsible for fetus support?

No?

Then it isn't a life in the eyes of the government.

When I have life growing inside me, I don't let a social security number determine if it's a baby or not.

Good for you. I'm not telling you how to feel about your pregnancy so stop telling other women how to feel about theirs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fetuses are not "potential life", they are a separate living human being, scientifically speaking.

If they’ve never been alive outside the womb, they’re potential life. Under the law (which is what we’re discussing) babies aren’t granted the status of living person until they’re born alive. Besides, this draft opinion is not grounded in science.

Under which law(s)? You’re making stuff up now. They may not be citizens or registered persons, but doubtful there is a law that defines life. If there were a law, rulings like RvW wouldn’t be necessary. That’s the crux of the issue. Pass a law that clearly defines human life and what may be done legally “by others” to that human life at its various stages. Fetus, baby, toddler, teen, adult, senior, invalid, death bed patient, comatose patients, death row inmate, etc. then we can all stop being hypocrites.

The Constitution includes being born as a requirement for citizenship.

And? Come on, complete the thought. How do you get from that to babies aren’t human beings till they’re born, or aren’t alive, or some damn thing? The Constitution doesn’t address that.

Fetuses not babies.

Conplete the thought yourself. A Scalia-esque view of the Constitution is 100% clear that a fetus cannot be a citizen. If a fetus cannot be a citizen that has all sorts of practical implications. It's not about philosophical questions of when life begins. It's about the practicalities of organizing society.

[Anonymous]

I refuse to let myself even acknowledge it was possibly a baby until close to the six or seventh month because of how many miscarriages and horrible pregnancy outcomes my own mom had.
I can honestly say I had no connection to what was growing inside of me until about 7:00 or 8 months pregnant, but that is my own personal journey and would never impose it on other people.

[Anonymous]

Scotus is not a panel of medical experts. They're sole purpose is to read and interpret the Constitution. Constitution is actually quite clear on this matter that in order to have rights, a person must first be born.
It is also quite clear on the rights of the individuals of this nation writes that the states and government cannot impede on without due process. Roe v. Wade and Casey have been upheld by Republican appointed judges for 50 years. To say that alito's opinion is anything but political is just a lie. Women's rights would take precedent in any of these legal matters because they in fact have already been born and thus have rights granted to them in the Constitution. Now you also have religious freedom and you can choose to believe whatever you want to about abortion and live by those values yourself. But to say it's illegal. Matter is completely absurd. The force your views on everyone else in this country is a clear violation of separation of church and state.
There is not one ounce of constitutional interpretation in his takedown of roe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fetuses are not "potential life", they are a separate living human being, scientifically speaking.

If they’ve never been alive outside the womb, they’re potential life. Under the law (which is what we’re discussing) babies aren’t granted the status of living person until they’re born alive. Besides, this draft opinion is not grounded in science.

Under which law(s)? You’re making stuff up now. They may not be citizens or registered persons, but doubtful there is a law that defines life. If there were a law, rulings like RvW wouldn’t be necessary. That’s the crux of the issue. Pass a law that clearly defines human life and what may be done legally “by others” to that human life at its various stages. Fetus, baby, toddler, teen, adult, senior, invalid, death bed patient, comatose patients, death row inmate, etc. then we can all stop being hypocrites.

Can a fetus get a social security number?
Is a man responsible for fetus support?

No?

Then it isn't a life in the eyes of the government.

When I have life growing inside me, I don't let a social security number determine if it's a baby or not.

Good for you. I'm not telling you how to feel about your pregnancy so stop telling other women how to feel about theirs

Life is life, regardless of how you want to spin it to minimize what happens to aborted babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And Trump got three supreme Court seats. Instead of voting for Hillary in the supreme Court you voted for Bernie.
You put person over party but Republicans would vote for a turd if there's an R by its name.

Now they get the supreme Court for the next 30 years

Yep. I held my nose and voted for Hillary,.while most of the Bernie bros did not. And now this is what we get for the next 30 years or so, unless all the rest of us join together to fight these religious zealots.

Oh please! I am in NO WAY a fan of Bernie but this goes back much further than 2016. This is a product of GOPs REDMAP plan that started in 2010. When Obama won, Republicans lost their friggin minds so they came up with a plan to take over state gov. For very little money they were able to get GOP elected (and Dems ignored this) until GOP had so much control that they could pass these draconian bills.

Can ya’ll just stop with the blame game? It’s gonna take everyone who is pro-choice to come together if we want to get out of this mess. The Republican Party has changed. This is a binary choice. If you believe the women should have the freedom to make their own health decision it means you STOP voting for MAGA Republicans, , and either vote for Dems or stay home.

I came together and did my part and voted for Hillary. It's everyone else who wouldn't do their part because they wanted to be able to sleep that night. That voted for people like Jill Stein and wrote in Bernie's name. I'm still going to vote Democrat but don't act like the Bernie Bros had nothing to do with Trump being president. They going to come together and do their part instead of being self righteous.

You’re a liar. 74.3% of Sanders primary supporters voted for Hillary in 2016 - as I did, as did every other Sanders voter I know, and we’re none of us Bernie Bros. There’s no evidence that Bernie Bros or the Loch Ness monster declined to vote for her or wrote in Bernie or voted Green Party to the numbers needed in swing states. YOU are the problem: the Democratic voter who ONLY wants to relitigate 2016 and rant about Susan Sarandon instead of getting anything done. I’m sick of it.

PP had it right - the GOP state-level ground game is what largely did this, what largely got Bush into the presidency, and the party has had no counter to it since the Reagan administration. It will take unity and sensible work - like donating to candidates well before the October big money push - and so on. But that part never comes up in these discussions! Instead, its Nancy Pelosi flipping out on Gavin Newsome for stating CORRECTLY that the Democratic Party didn’t do enough to attempt to codify Roe. It’s just exhausting. And it doesn’t inspire confidence or get people to want to vote, right?

You know your first paragraph supports what that previous poster said, right?. You said you voted for Bernie and are not a Bernie bro. The poster is talking about Bernie Bros. Not voting for Hillary. Are not a Bernie bro and voted for Hillary so that point is kind of moot.
You say 74% of Bernie voters voted for Hillary. Well the other 25% didn't and that could have won the election.

F you. Where were those quarter voters distributed? Why are you spouting off these idiotic lies still? You’re wrong on the facts, but do still live in 2016, where life was magical.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:15 weeks
No restrictions
No waiting
Easy access
Affordable
After 15 weeks - rape/incest/life of mother or fetus
Dr. is given broad discretion to use best medical practices.

I’m hard core pro-choice and could live with this
But this country has a long way to go to get abortion access to women everywhere. Later abortions are happening because of all the roadblocks republicans have erected.

I’d also like to see verbiage for free birth control and better sex education. I had excellent sex education growing up and I think it really made a difference.

I live in California and this would be more restrictive than what we currently have. If you've never had genetic testing come back at 20w and scrambled to get your MFM appointment before the abortion cut off in your state so that you would have options, please don't negotiate away the rest of our rights.

I would not support any bill that was more restrictive than Roe and that removed discretion for states. The WHPA is a good compromise...but people want Democrats to start off with a bill that their base doesn't support. No thank you.

Baseline, not a ceiling. I was just suggesting a bill that might actually pass. That’s all.
I agree 20 weeks is better.

Also: most people don’t understand what Roe even means. Democrats need to educate the public. The forced birthers have been lying for 40
Years. People now believe the lies.

15 weeks isn't any more likely to get 60 votes than 20 weeks, viability, or 40 weeks. None of them can ge 60 in the Senate. Meanwhile if 15 weeks is proposed then that becomes the new baseline negotiating position.

Find the 8 extra Senators that are willing to pass anything first. There's currently only 51 + Manchin potentially interested in anything.

Exactly. 15 weeks is just some arbitrary line. Stick with viability.

That is the gestational age where a fetus can feel pain. Science and all that.

JFC you people with your never ending stream of bullsh!t. Also, the electric signals that the ultrasound picks up at six weeks are not a “heartbeat,” since an embryo at that stage doesn’t have a fully formed heart.

Ok, so when do you think a fetus can feel pain?

They don't want to answer that question. They respond by deflecting or denying.

It has no brain and is not sentient. So who cares?

At some point before birth it has a brain, no? I’m pro-choice but would not be opposed to a heightened standard of some sort after the point that pain can be felt. To the PP that said if it’s not in my body, it’s not my business, how would you feel about a newborn being murdered. It’s not in your house, so it’s not your business right? I think those of you who won’t even acknowledge that there might be pain to a late term fetus that must be dismembered to be aborted are just as bad as those on the other extreme end of the spectrum.

Which late-term fetuses are being aborted? The ones without brains? The ones with devastating (painful) defects?

https://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-birth-abortion-separating-fact-from-spin

This article (though a bit old) was a fact checking article by NPR on “partial birth” abortions. This quote implies that all such abortions are not only performed on severely defective fetuses:

“Under what health circumstances are D&X abortions performed?

There is currently no statistical information available on why "dilation and extraction" abortions are performed.

In a widely-publicized interview with The New York Times in 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated that in the majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother and healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along in development.”

If anyone has more recent information that contradicts this, I would be very interested in seeing it.

D&E is 2nd trimester, not “late term”.

D&E refers to dilation and evacuation. The quote above is talking about dilation and extraction (also known as partial birth abortion).

“Partial birth” isn’t a thing.

And 2nd trimester isn’t “late term”.

Did you read the linked NPR article? The fetus is in fact partially delivered and it’s not limited to 2nd trimester.

“Two abortion physicians, one in Ohio and one in California, independently developed variations on the method by extracting the fetus intact. The Ohio physician, Martin Haskell, called his method "dilation and extraction," or D&X. It involved dilating the woman's cervix, then pulling the fetus through it feet first until only the head remained inside. Using scissors or another sharp instrument, the head was then punctured, and the skull compressed, so it, too, could fit through the dilated cervix.”

I’m not even saying this should be completely banned. But it doesn’t help the pro-choice movement to sugarcoat facts.

the only fact that matter is that if it isn't your body, it is not your business. If you don't want this procedure, then don't get one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fetuses are not "potential life", they are a separate living human being, scientifically speaking.

If they’ve never been alive outside the womb, they’re potential life. Under the law (which is what we’re discussing) babies aren’t granted the status of living person until they’re born alive. Besides, this draft opinion is not grounded in science.

Under which law(s)? You’re making stuff up now. They may not be citizens or registered persons, but doubtful there is a law that defines life. If there were a law, rulings like RvW wouldn’t be necessary. That’s the crux of the issue. Pass a law that clearly defines human life and what may be done legally “by others” to that human life at its various stages. Fetus, baby, toddler, teen, adult, senior, invalid, death bed patient, comatose patients, death row inmate, etc. then we can all stop being hypocrites.

The Constitution includes being born as a requirement for citizenship.

And? Come on, complete the thought. How do you get from that to babies aren’t human beings till they’re born, or aren’t alive, or some damn thing? The Constitution doesn’t address that.

The Constitution not addressing that is usually not a concern of the right. IOW, if the Constitution doesn't address it, then it isn't an issue....The constitution also said black people were 3/5th of a white person and that women couldn't vote.

Maybe it is time we update the document?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fetuses are not "potential life", they are a separate living human being, scientifically speaking.

If they’ve never been alive outside the womb, they’re potential life. Under the law (which is what we’re discussing) babies aren’t granted the status of living person until they’re born alive. Besides, this draft opinion is not grounded in science.

Under which law(s)? You’re making stuff up now. They may not be citizens or registered persons, but doubtful there is a law that defines life. If there were a law, rulings like RvW wouldn’t be necessary. That’s the crux of the issue. Pass a law that clearly defines human life and what may be done legally “by others” to that human life at its various stages. Fetus, baby, toddler, teen, adult, senior, invalid, death bed patient, comatose patients, death row inmate, etc. then we can all stop being hypocrites.

Can a fetus get a social security number?
Is a man responsible for fetus support?

No?

Then it isn't a life in the eyes of the government.

When I have life growing inside me, I don't let a social security number determine if it's a baby or not.

That is your choice and your business. However, you seem to be perfectly happy to project your life experience and morals on to others. This is the United States of America. That doesn't fly. Mind your own business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fetuses are not "potential life", they are a separate living human being, scientifically speaking.

If they’ve never been alive outside the womb, they’re potential life. Under the law (which is what we’re discussing) babies aren’t granted the status of living person until they’re born alive. Besides, this draft opinion is not grounded in science.

Under which law(s)? You’re making stuff up now. They may not be citizens or registered persons, but doubtful there is a law that defines life. If there were a law, rulings like RvW wouldn’t be necessary. That’s the crux of the issue. Pass a law that clearly defines human life and what may be done legally “by others” to that human life at its various stages. Fetus, baby, toddler, teen, adult, senior, invalid, death bed patient, comatose patients, death row inmate, etc. then we can all stop being hypocrites.

Can a fetus get a social security number?
Is a man responsible for fetus support?

No?

Then it isn't a life in the eyes of the government.

When I have life growing inside me, I don't let a social security number determine if it's a baby or not.

Good for you. I'm not telling you how to feel about your pregnancy so stop telling other women how to feel about theirs

Life is life, regardless of how you want to spin it to minimize what happens to aborted babies.

That is your value and opinion. You are welcome to have it. But you are not at liberty to force others into your belief system.

Get it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't care who the Democrat is. We need to just vote for them at every level at this point.
I don't care if they support a 12:15-18 week. Whatever it is ban. I just want someone in who's more likely to vote with the party on policies and get things done. I am so sick of throwing out good in the search of perfection.
Football games aren't played by people trying to kick a field goal from the other end zone. That's going to happen maybe once in a million times. Instead you move the ball forward slowly and methodically until you can get to where the hell you want it to be and hopefully you have people on your team helping you move at that direction. Ask yourself if the person you're voting for will get you closer to where you want to be or further away and vote that way and stop it with this perfection nonsense please. Republicans would vote for a dead corpse if it meant that they had an r by their name. Democrats need to start playing that game for a while

More than that...get involved yourselves. Join municipal boards (usually appointed, not elected) and run for office. You can really only understand the impacts of reproductive rights if you also understand how thin and frayed our social safety net is. Cities are struggling to feed and house low-income residents. In addition to ensuring every American has access to the standard of medical care without legislative intervention, we also need to ensure that having unplanned children in this country is not a sentence to a lifetime of poverty.

[Anonymous]

YLS may want to start rethinking their admissions policy. The thread below is insane. Hard to believe these people are future lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:YLS may want to start rethinking their admissions policy. The thread below is insane. Hard to believe these people are future lawyers.

People who don’t respect human rights are often find it hard to believe others do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fetuses are not "potential life", they are a separate living human being, scientifically speaking.

If they’ve never been alive outside the womb, they’re potential life. Under the law (which is what we’re discussing) babies aren’t granted the status of living person until they’re born alive. Besides, this draft opinion is not grounded in science.

Under which law(s)? You’re making stuff up now. They may not be citizens or registered persons, but doubtful there is a law that defines life. If there were a law, rulings like RvW wouldn’t be necessary. That’s the crux of the issue. Pass a law that clearly defines human life and what may be done legally “by others” to that human life at its various stages. Fetus, baby, toddler, teen, adult, senior, invalid, death bed patient, comatose patients, death row inmate, etc. then we can all stop being hypocrites.

The Constitution includes being born as a requirement for citizenship.

And? Come on, complete the thought. How do you get from that to babies aren’t human beings till they’re born, or aren’t alive, or some damn thing? The Constitution doesn’t address that.

The Constitution not addressing that is usually not a concern of the right. IOW, if the Constitution doesn't address it, then it isn't an issue....The constitution also said black people were 3/5th of a white person and that women couldn't vote.

Maybe it is time we update the document?

Have you honestly not heard of looking called amendments?.

[Anonymous]

Just curious........

If a pregnant woman is murdered, the majority of states will charge the criminal with TWO homicides.

The majority of states have fetal homicide laws.

If the unborn has no rights, why is this the case?

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx