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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the poster pushing personhood starts at birth, extreme liberal here telling you to STOP that line of messaging. It hurts the pro-choice movement. I get that you are talking legal terms but it’s REALLY not helpful. Please stop.

DP.

Liberty >> Personhood >> “Life”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

I've had a fetus expelled from my body and it was not a baby.

And you know very well that there are plenty of right-wing fanatics out there who want to ban abortion from the point of conception. Never mind that most conceptions don't even make it to birth because human reproduction is extremely inefficient.

Let's all agree that human life begins at conception. Let's stipulate to that fact and move on.

And let's get to the real issue here: Control. Who gets to control women's health? Is it the state? Is it the woman?

And let's also talk about equal protection. Women are certainly treated differently than men when that male sperm mates with a woman's egg, aren't they? Why is that? If women have to endure pregnancy, then men who impregnate them must endure something similar. What's it gonna be? Imprison the men for nine months while the woman is pregnant with their child? Women and men deserve equal treatment and equal protection under the law. That's in the constitution.

Nope. Don't agree.

Great 2 pt. (so far) series on The Daily. THe second one interviews numerous abortion providers and is quite powerful.
One of the doctors gives a wonderful rebuttal to the "life begins at conception" belief.
A must list for all.

+1

Very informative.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-post-roe-america-part-2-the-abortion-providers/id1200361736?i=1000560472897

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

I've had a fetus expelled from my body and it was not a baby.

And you know very well that there are plenty of right-wing fanatics out there who want to ban abortion from the point of conception. Never mind that most conceptions don't even make it to birth because human reproduction is extremely inefficient.

Let's all agree that human life begins at conception. Let's stipulate to that fact and move on.

And let's get to the real issue here: Control. Who gets to control women's health? Is it the state? Is it the woman?

And let's also talk about equal protection. Women are certainly treated differently than men when that male sperm mates with a woman's egg, aren't they? Why is that? If women have to endure pregnancy, then men who impregnate them must endure something similar. What's it gonna be? Imprison the men for nine months while the woman is pregnant with their child? Women and men deserve equal treatment and equal protection under the law. That's in the constitution.

What an ignorant post. There is enorrmous and intense disagreement about your very first statement.

NP. Not really. Human, Homo sapiens, life begins at the moment of conception. That’s not the debate and immaterial. Rather, it’s whether a person can be forced to maintain a pregnancy in their body against their will and subjected to forced birth. Keep up.

Uh no. That isn’t what most people consider intelligent life. I think people disagree that “personhood” starts at conception. I don’t believe the rights of personhood attach until birth. The state may have an interest in promoting birth, and that’s fine, but that’s why we had Roe. Anyway, this debate is stupid and irrelevant to the holding that the court may adopt in Hobbs. It goes far beyond weighing the states’ interests in protecting unborn children, and erases fundamental rights for pregnant women. You keep up.

Yes. “Life” is a stupid term pushed by RWNJs.

The debate is about “personhood”.

A fertilized egg is not a person.

The debate is not about this at all. It’s about whether pregnant women have ANY RIGHTS to end a pregnancy, ever. Please. For the love of god. The debate you are having is the one settled by Roe. We are about to throw it all out for something much more extreme.

[Anonymous]

If this opinion stands, I’m looking forward to Robert’s dissent. It better be good. And then we need to expand the court. Alito’s opinion is the most radical I’ve read.

[Anonymous]

I'm up with some lawyer friends over the weekend and a couple were saying that they feel this week to draft was overreaching for a reason. The final ruling will have more restrictions than roe but not as radical as the leaked version.
The Republican talking point will be how reasonable Republicans are with balancing abortion rights and protecting the sanctity of life with a liberals will look like a bunch of unhinged people overreacting to something that wasn't even a final ruling.
They will springboard off of that into other types of hysteria. They will pin on Democrats saying that they always overreact and we need the calm cool level heads of Republicans in office. Because look they're saving all of these babies while also respecting women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

I've had a fetus expelled from my body and it was not a baby.

And you know very well that there are plenty of right-wing fanatics out there who want to ban abortion from the point of conception. Never mind that most conceptions don't even make it to birth because human reproduction is extremely inefficient.

Let's all agree that human life begins at conception. Let's stipulate to that fact and move on.

And let's get to the real issue here: Control. Who gets to control women's health? Is it the state? Is it the woman?

And let's also talk about equal protection. Women are certainly treated differently than men when that male sperm mates with a woman's egg, aren't they? Why is that? If women have to endure pregnancy, then men who impregnate them must endure something similar. What's it gonna be? Imprison the men for nine months while the woman is pregnant with their child? Women and men deserve equal treatment and equal protection under the law. That's in the constitution.

What an ignorant post. There is enorrmous and intense disagreement about your very first statement.

NP. Not really. Human, Homo sapiens, life begins at the moment of conception. That’s not the debate and immaterial. Rather, it’s whether a person can be forced to maintain a pregnancy in their body against their will and subjected to forced birth. Keep up.

Uh no. That isn’t what most people consider intelligent life. I think people disagree that “personhood” starts at conception. I don’t believe the rights of personhood attach until birth. The state may have an interest in promoting birth, and that’s fine, but that’s why we had Roe. Anyway, this debate is stupid and irrelevant to the holding that the court may adopt in Hobbs. It goes far beyond weighing the states’ interests in protecting unborn children, and erases fundamental rights for pregnant women. You keep up.

Yes. “Life” is a stupid term pushed by RWNJs.

The debate is about “personhood”.

A fertilized egg is not a person.

The debate is not about this at all. It’s about whether pregnant women have ANY RIGHTS to end a pregnancy, ever. Please. For the love of god. The debate you are having is the one settled by Roe. We are about to throw it all out for something much more extreme.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm up with some lawyer friends over the weekend and a couple were saying that they feel this week to draft was overreaching for a reason. The final ruling will have more restrictions than roe but not as radical as the leaked version.
The Republican talking point will be how reasonable Republicans are with balancing abortion rights and protecting the sanctity of life with a liberals will look like a bunch of unhinged people overreacting to something that wasn't even a final ruling.
They will springboard off of that into other types of hysteria. They will pin on Democrats saying that they always overreact and we need the calm cool level heads of Republicans in office. Because look they're saving all of these babies while also respecting women.

Predictable. But would at least affirm the rights of women to access healthcare. The status quo is imperfect in the sense that the scrutiny the Court has applied has not been strict enough in light of the fundamental rights of pregnant women. The “compelling” state interests are not all that compelling in my view for many of the restrictions the court has placed on abortion access. But that’s better than erasing rights entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm up with some lawyer friends over the weekend and a couple were saying that they feel this week to draft was overreaching for a reason. The final ruling will have more restrictions than roe but not as radical as the leaked version.
The Republican talking point will be how reasonable Republicans are with balancing abortion rights and protecting the sanctity of life with a liberals will look like a bunch of unhinged people overreacting to something that wasn't even a final ruling.
They will springboard off of that into other types of hysteria. They will pin on Democrats saying that they always overreact and we need the calm cool level heads of Republicans in office. Because look they're saving all of these babies while also respecting women.

Predictable. But would at least affirm the rights of women to access healthcare. The status quo is imperfect in the sense that the scrutiny the Court has applied has not been strict enough in light of the fundamental rights of pregnant women. The “compelling” state interests are not all that compelling in my view for many of the restrictions the court has placed on abortion access. But that’s better than erasing rights entirely.

Depends on how restrictive the new ruling is.

Are we getting into slippery slope?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

I've had a fetus expelled from my body and it was not a baby.

And you know very well that there are plenty of right-wing fanatics out there who want to ban abortion from the point of conception. Never mind that most conceptions don't even make it to birth because human reproduction is extremely inefficient.

Let's all agree that human life begins at conception. Let's stipulate to that fact and move on.

And let's get to the real issue here: Control. Who gets to control women's health? Is it the state? Is it the woman?

And let's also talk about equal protection. Women are certainly treated differently than men when that male sperm mates with a woman's egg, aren't they? Why is that? If women have to endure pregnancy, then men who impregnate them must endure something similar. What's it gonna be? Imprison the men for nine months while the woman is pregnant with their child? Women and men deserve equal treatment and equal protection under the law. That's in the constitution.

Nope. Don't agree.

Great 2 pt. (so far) series on The Daily. THe second one interviews numerous abortion providers and is quite powerful.
One of the doctors gives a wonderful rebuttal to the "life begins at conception" belief.
A must list for all.

+1

Very informative.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-post-roe-america-part-2-the-abortion-providers/id1200361736?i=1000560472897

Excellent. Everyone should listen to this second part.

"Having a delivery...is at least 10-12 times more dangerous than having an abortion." "Pregnancy is not a joke."

That is what sticks out. You anti-abortionists refuse to engage with this reality. Because you don't value the lives of women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.

You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.

I've had a fetus expelled from my body and it was not a baby.

And you know very well that there are plenty of right-wing fanatics out there who want to ban abortion from the point of conception. Never mind that most conceptions don't even make it to birth because human reproduction is extremely inefficient.

Let's all agree that human life begins at conception. Let's stipulate to that fact and move on.

And let's get to the real issue here: Control. Who gets to control women's health? Is it the state? Is it the woman?

And let's also talk about equal protection. Women are certainly treated differently than men when that male sperm mates with a woman's egg, aren't they? Why is that? If women have to endure pregnancy, then men who impregnate them must endure something similar. What's it gonna be? Imprison the men for nine months while the woman is pregnant with their child? Women and men deserve equal treatment and equal protection under the law. That's in the constitution.

Nope. Don't agree.

Great 2 pt. (so far) series on The Daily. THe second one interviews numerous abortion providers and is quite powerful.
One of the doctors gives a wonderful rebuttal to the "life begins at conception" belief.
A must list for all.

+1

Very informative.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-post-roe-america-part-2-the-abortion-providers/id1200361736?i=1000560472897

Excellent. Everyone should listen to this second part.

"Having a delivery...is at least 10-12 times more dangerous than having an abortion." "Pregnancy is not a joke."

That is what sticks out. You anti-abortionists refuse to engage with this reality. Because you don't value the lives of women.

This. They think pregnancy is magical—newsflash, it’s terrifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm up with some lawyer friends over the weekend and a couple were saying that they feel this week to draft was overreaching for a reason. The final ruling will have more restrictions than roe but not as radical as the leaked version.
The Republican talking point will be how reasonable Republicans are with balancing abortion rights and protecting the sanctity of life with a liberals will look like a bunch of unhinged people overreacting to something that wasn't even a final ruling.
They will springboard off of that into other types of hysteria. They will pin on Democrats saying that they always overreact and we need the calm cool level heads of Republicans in office. Because look they're saving all of these babies while also respecting women.

Predictable. But would at least affirm the rights of women to access healthcare. The status quo is imperfect in the sense that the scrutiny the Court has applied has not been strict enough in light of the fundamental rights of pregnant women. The “compelling” state interests are not all that compelling in my view for many of the restrictions the court has placed on abortion access. But that’s better than erasing rights entirely.

Depends on how restrictive the new ruling is.

Are we getting into slippery slope?

No. Any reasoning under the strict scrutiny standard (current law) is better than Alito’s torching of women’s rights. It’s just a different fight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm up with some lawyer friends over the weekend and a couple were saying that they feel this week to draft was overreaching for a reason. The final ruling will have more restrictions than roe but not as radical as the leaked version.
The Republican talking point will be how reasonable Republicans are with balancing abortion rights and protecting the sanctity of life with a liberals will look like a bunch of unhinged people overreacting to something that wasn't even a final ruling.
They will springboard off of that into other types of hysteria. They will pin on Democrats saying that they always overreact and we need the calm cool level heads of Republicans in office. Because look they're saving all of these babies while also respecting women.

Time will tell, but I doubt this. The 5 judges in the majority have all been hand selected by Leonard Leo for views that match his own, on everything from criminalizing abortion to encouraging ever more money in politics and guns on the streets. The Federalist Society has captured the Court and they’re not going to back down because of a little thing like public opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm up with some lawyer friends over the weekend and a couple were saying that they feel this week to draft was overreaching for a reason. The final ruling will have more restrictions than roe but not as radical as the leaked version.
The Republican talking point will be how reasonable Republicans are with balancing abortion rights and protecting the sanctity of life with a liberals will look like a bunch of unhinged people overreacting to something that wasn't even a final ruling.
They will springboard off of that into other types of hysteria. They will pin on Democrats saying that they always overreact and we need the calm cool level heads of Republicans in office. Because look they're saving all of these babies while also respecting women.

Predictable. But would at least affirm the rights of women to access healthcare. The status quo is imperfect in the sense that the scrutiny the Court has applied has not been strict enough in light of the fundamental rights of pregnant women. The “compelling” state interests are not all that compelling in my view for many of the restrictions the court has placed on abortion access. But that’s better than erasing rights entirely.

Depends on how restrictive the new ruling is.

Are we getting into slippery slope?

No. Any reasoning under the strict scrutiny standard (current law) is better than Alito’s torching of women’s rights. It’s just a different fight.

Anything less than viability feels like a huge loss for women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If this opinion stands, I’m looking forward to Robert’s dissent. It better be good. And then we need to expand the court. Alito’s opinion is the most radical I’ve read.

This is the most favorable it will be for a while for democrats. They haven't expanded the court and they will do nothing in response to this ruling other than bloviate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm up with some lawyer friends over the weekend and a couple were saying that they feel this week to draft was overreaching for a reason. The final ruling will have more restrictions than roe but not as radical as the leaked version.
The Republican talking point will be how reasonable Republicans are with balancing abortion rights and protecting the sanctity of life with a liberals will look like a bunch of unhinged people overreacting to something that wasn't even a final ruling.
They will springboard off of that into other types of hysteria. They will pin on Democrats saying that they always overreact and we need the calm cool level heads of Republicans in office. Because look they're saving all of these babies while also respecting women.

Predictable. But would at least affirm the rights of women to access healthcare. The status quo is imperfect in the sense that the scrutiny the Court has applied has not been strict enough in light of the fundamental rights of pregnant women. The “compelling” state interests are not all that compelling in my view for many of the restrictions the court has placed on abortion access. But that’s better than erasing rights entirely.

Depends on how restrictive the new ruling is.

Are we getting into slippery slope?

No. Any reasoning under the strict scrutiny standard (current law) is better than Alito’s torching of women’s rights. It’s just a different fight.

Anything less than viability feels like a huge loss for women.

Viablily is a horrible standard. I think the Europeans have it right, on demand for the first trimester and then with reason thereafter