“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:

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

So… pretty much how women would choose to abort absent forced birth fcking with laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Do you know what the 20 week ultrasound is? Or when it is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Doesn’t work with US healthcare and state restrictions.

Anything before viability is too early.

20w scan isn’t until 20w.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

What would you suggest Democrats do instead at this point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What would you suggest Democrats do instead at this point?

There is no right to an abortion in the U.S. Constitution. Assuming this is simply "women's health" per se, all health laws are matters of state law. Hence, each state has its own abortion law. What do democrats do? Work within our democratic process to get state abortion laws you want. Just like was done very recently in NY, attempted in VA. You vote, and you lobby to get the state laws you want. If you don't like your state, you move.

[Anonymous]

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.

Your fetus was very early in the developing process. Wouldn't be true if development were further along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What would you suggest Democrats do instead at this point?

There is no right to an abortion in the U.S. Constitution. Assuming this is simply "women's health" per se, all health laws are matters of state law. Hence, each state has its own abortion law. What do democrats do? Work within our democratic process to get state abortion laws you want. Just like was done very recently in NY, attempted in VA. You vote, and you lobby to get the state laws you want. If you don't like your state, you move.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What would you suggest Democrats do instead at this point?

There is no right to an abortion in the U.S. Constitution. Assuming this is simply "women's health" per se, all health laws are matters of state law. Hence, each state has its own abortion law. What do democrats do? Work within our democratic process to get state abortion laws you want. Just like was done very recently in NY, attempted in VA. You vote, and you lobby to get the state laws you want. If you don't like your state, you move.

This is simply false. There are federal laws regulating abortion already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has NOTHING to do with abortion and 100% to do with the privacy rights that ARE guaranteed by our constitution.

Women want to give birth at home. Homebirths can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?

Women want to have large families. Large families can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?

Women want to then homeschool their children. Homeschooling can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?

Women have PRIVACY rights, the rights to decide when and how they want to have their children and raise their children.

Make no mistake. This is an attack on ALL women -- women who are pro abortion, women who are anti choice. It really makes NO difference. If you are in favor of women having children and having families and raising those families the way that you think that they should be raised, then be VERY scared of this opinion. It is taking away YOUR rights too. It has NOTHING to do with abortion at all. It states specifically that women have NO fundament rights at all unless they are specifically guaranteed by the constitution.

There are no privacy rights in the Constitution. That is the whole issue. They can be added. People should go for it. I even think an act of Congress could preserve abortion rights. But they otherwise do not exist.

Should intentional homebirths be banned -- yes I think they should -- no issue. The other rights are protected by a combination of portions of the Constitution.

What???? I hope you are 100% joking. Women have been giving birth at home for thousands and thousands of years. EVERY single president was born at home until Jimmy Carter (and maybe after, too).

Women do NOT need to be subjected to male notions and control on how and when to give birth. That is the next step though and this reasoning is why I am so concerned. Fine, they outlaw abortion. Maybe half the country cares. But next they outlaw homebirth. Then they outlaw homeschooling. Then they outlaw more than one child. Then they outlaw natural birth.

Get OUT Of my life, my family, and my decisions. I can birth on a boat, in a hot tub, or a rug. You do not have the right to tell me how I can push things out of my body. If it was a man needing to take a dump, you wouldn't tell him where and how to do it. I am not under your control.

And, privacy rights do exist in the constitution. That is the basis of the Loving decision.

Can't believe you're comparing having a baby to taking a dump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What would you suggest Democrats do instead at this point?

There is no right to an abortion in the U.S. Constitution. Assuming this is simply "women's health" per se, all health laws are matters of state law. Hence, each state has its own abortion law. What do democrats do? Work within our democratic process to get state abortion laws you want. Just like was done very recently in NY, attempted in VA. You vote, and you lobby to get the state laws you want. If you don't like your state, you move.

+1

This isn’t about whether states can regulate abortion or not. They already do, under Roe and Casey. This is about allowing states to deny woman access to abortion entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has NOTHING to do with abortion and 100% to do with the privacy rights that ARE guaranteed by our constitution.

Women want to give birth at home. Homebirths can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?

Women want to have large families. Large families can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?

Women want to then homeschool their children. Homeschooling can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?

Women have PRIVACY rights, the rights to decide when and how they want to have their children and raise their children.

Make no mistake. This is an attack on ALL women -- women who are pro abortion, women who are anti choice. It really makes NO difference. If you are in favor of women having children and having families and raising those families the way that you think that they should be raised, then be VERY scared of this opinion. It is taking away YOUR rights too. It has NOTHING to do with abortion at all. It states specifically that women have NO fundament rights at all unless they are specifically guaranteed by the constitution.

There are no privacy rights in the Constitution. That is the whole issue. They can be added. People should go for it. I even think an act of Congress could preserve abortion rights. But they otherwise do not exist.

Should intentional homebirths be banned -- yes I think they should -- no issue. The other rights are protected by a combination of portions of the Constitution.

What???? I hope you are 100% joking. Women have been giving birth at home for thousands and thousands of years. EVERY single president was born at home until Jimmy Carter (and maybe after, too).

Women do NOT need to be subjected to male notions and control on how and when to give birth. That is the next step though and this reasoning is why I am so concerned. Fine, they outlaw abortion. Maybe half the country cares. But next they outlaw homebirth. Then they outlaw homeschooling. Then they outlaw more than one child. Then they outlaw natural birth.

Get OUT Of my life, my family, and my decisions. I can birth on a boat, in a hot tub, or a rug. You do not have the right to tell me how I can push things out of my body. If it was a man needing to take a dump, you wouldn't tell him where and how to do it. I am not under your control.

And, privacy rights do exist in the constitution. That is the basis of the Loving decision.

Can't believe you're comparing having a baby to taking a dump.

And I can’t believe forced birthers think they’re smart or kind.

This is the kind of lunacy - in office lunacy, lunacy that passes laws - that infests the GOP today. The kind of low-grade intellect that honestly compares women to animals and doesn’t understand that that’s not bright. The kind that can’t shut up about 40 week abortion that literally never happens while their fcked up party of misogynists is banning all abortion and birth control. Why? Because women didn’t always have those rights, ergo they’re not entitled to those rights.

I guess we’re going back to women as sort of quasi-citizens and Black people are going to have to go back to being enslaved since that’s what rights they had initially.

[Anonymous]

Women should not have to ask the state to give them the right to an abortion. Preposterous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women should not have to ask the state to give them the right to an abortion. Preposterous.

+1

This whole debate is surreal. Women should have control of their own bodies. Not the government, pushing views of religious extremists.

[Anonymous]

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.

Your fetus was very early in the developing process. Wouldn't be true if development were further along.

Yes and the vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester. Which the GOP wants to ban too.

[Anonymous]

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.

Your fetus was very early in the developing process. Wouldn't be true if development were further along.

Yes and the vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester. Which the GOP wants to ban too.

And which would be perfectly constitutional according to this sham opinion by Alito. What an embarrassment for the SCOTUS. If it actually gets issued it will be a dark day.