SCOTUS: oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson (MS abortion case)

[Anonymous]

Due process clause of the 14th amendment.

[Anonymous]

In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another. There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes. We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves.

Sotomayor asks how anti-abortion argument is ‘anything but a religious view’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the Mississippi solicitor general during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Dec. 1. (The Washington Post)
The motives behind the antiabortion movement become clear when one recognizes that even though abortion is legal, the incidence of abortion has dropped dramatically. Hence, permissive laws do not mean the procedure happens more often. If we want to reduce abortions, we arguably should be doing precisely what we have been doing over the past few decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/01/fundamental-deception-behind-pro-life-movement/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Laws vary by state, but, in most states, fathers are responsible for financial support during pregnancy and including birth. The OBLIGATION exists back to the moment of conception even if the ENFORCEMENT of the obligation doesn’t begin until post birth. In some states, like Colorado, paternity can be established pre birth and pregnancy expenses can be enforced against the father of the unborn child prior to birth.

You’re lying. Hell, I’ll be generous. You’re twisting words to try and make it look like you have a point: https://www.colorado-family-law.com/parenting-custody/paternity-unmarried-parents

Fatherhood of the children of an unwed mother is established AT BIRTH. Like in every state, unless you have proof otherwise. The father is only responsible for paying for part of the birth if the state of Colorado’s social services paid for them.

Insurance, little things like carpooling, all this stuff is predicated on BIRTH. That time when the products of concept becomes it’s own person, breathing its own air, able to take in nutrition from something other than the nutrients sucked from its mother’s body. You forced birthers are such freaks who have spent so much time in your little misogyny bubbles that you’ve lost touch with reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Laws vary by state, but, in most states, fathers are responsible for financial support during pregnancy and including birth. The OBLIGATION exists back to the moment of conception even if the ENFORCEMENT of the obligation doesn’t begin until post birth. In some states, like Colorado, paternity can be established pre birth and pregnancy expenses can be enforced against the father of the unborn child prior to birth.

You’re lying. Hell, I’ll be generous. You’re twisting words to try and make it look like you have a point: https://www.colorado-family-law.com/parenting-custody/paternity-unmarried-parents

Fatherhood of the children of an unwed mother is established AT BIRTH. Like in every state, unless you have proof otherwise. The father is only responsible for paying for part of the birth if the state of Colorado’s social services paid for them.

Insurance, little things like carpooling, all this stuff is predicated on BIRTH. That time when the products of concept becomes it’s own person, breathing its own air, able to take in nutrition from something other than the nutrients sucked from its mother’s body. You forced birthers are such freaks who have spent so much time in your little misogyny bubbles that you’ve lost touch with reality.

Try again. You’re running a lazy Google search instead of actually reading the law.

CRS 19-4-105.5.3 explicitly permits the filing of a paternity action prior to the birth of a child.

CRS 19-4-116(3)(c) explicitly states that bills for pregnancy and childbirth expenses are recoverable in a paternity action. No requirement that costs be incurred by governmental entities.

Once you read the code for yourself, please do come back and admit you were wrong (although an apology would be nice).

https://leg.colorado.gov/agencies/office-legislative-legal-services/colorado-revised-statutes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another. There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes. We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves.

Sotomayor asks how anti-abortion argument is ‘anything but a religious view’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the Mississippi solicitor general during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Dec. 1. (The Washington Post)
The motives behind the antiabortion movement become clear when one recognizes that even though abortion is legal, the incidence of abortion has dropped dramatically. Hence, permissive laws do not mean the procedure happens more often. If we want to reduce abortions, we arguably should be doing precisely what we have been doing over the past few decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/01/fundamental-deception-behind-pro-life-movement/

"In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another?"

VACCINE MANDATES

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Laws vary by state, but, in most states, fathers are responsible for financial support during pregnancy and including birth. The OBLIGATION exists back to the moment of conception even if the ENFORCEMENT of the obligation doesn’t begin until post birth. In some states, like Colorado, paternity can be established pre birth and pregnancy expenses can be enforced against the father of the unborn child prior to birth.

You’re lying. Hell, I’ll be generous. You’re twisting words to try and make it look like you have a point: https://www.colorado-family-law.com/parenting-custody/paternity-unmarried-parents

Fatherhood of the children of an unwed mother is established AT BIRTH. Like in every state, unless you have proof otherwise. The father is only responsible for paying for part of the birth if the state of Colorado’s social services paid for them.

Insurance, little things like carpooling, all this stuff is predicated on BIRTH. That time when the products of concept becomes it’s own person, breathing its own air, able to take in nutrition from something other than the nutrients sucked from its mother’s body. You forced birthers are such freaks who have spent so much time in your little misogyny bubbles that you’ve lost touch with reality.

Try again. You’re running a lazy Google search instead of actually reading the law.

CRS 19-4-105.5.3 explicitly permits the filing of a paternity action prior to the birth of a child.

CRS 19-4-116(3)(c) explicitly states that bills for pregnancy and childbirth expenses are recoverable in a paternity action. No requirement that costs be incurred by governmental entities.

Once you read the code for yourself, please do come back and admit you were wrong (although an apology would be nice).

https://leg.colorado.gov/agencies/office-legislative-legal-services/colorado-revised-statutes

....but such payments are "recoverable" after birth. If life begins at conception, why is the mother having to "recover" anything? She should be paid by the alleged father in real-time.

Interesting that the law treats birth as the qualifying event upon which recovery can be premised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another. There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes. We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves.

Sotomayor asks how anti-abortion argument is ‘anything but a religious view’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the Mississippi solicitor general during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Dec. 1. (The Washington Post)
The motives behind the antiabortion movement become clear when one recognizes that even though abortion is legal, the incidence of abortion has dropped dramatically. Hence, permissive laws do not mean the procedure happens more often. If we want to reduce abortions, we arguably should be doing precisely what we have been doing over the past few decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/01/fundamental-deception-behind-pro-life-movement/

"In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another?"

VACCINE MANDATES

No, not quite. The mandates are to prevent the individuals from becoming walking disease bombs spreading their vile filth all over everyone else. Ideally we could just dispense with the mandates and lock contagious individuals in their houses under threat of death, but that costs a lot of money.

The proper analogy is if, instead of a kidney patient using dialysis, we instead hooked her up to someone with a healthy kidney to filter her blood too. Or we forced Catholic men to donate blood, marrow, and spare parts to save the lives of little kids in their community or even their own little kids. Right now that Catholic man has a choice to donate to his own kid but he doesn’t have to, even if the kid is sick from some genetic disease Dad gave him the gene for or the kid needs blood because Dad beat the crap out of him. Many of these good Catholic men would give but there is no doubt it is a choice for them. Under the church’s rule, mom never gets that choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Laws vary by state, but, in most states, fathers are responsible for financial support during pregnancy and including birth. The OBLIGATION exists back to the moment of conception even if the ENFORCEMENT of the obligation doesn’t begin until post birth. In some states, like Colorado, paternity can be established pre birth and pregnancy expenses can be enforced against the father of the unborn child prior to birth.

You’re lying. Hell, I’ll be generous. You’re twisting words to try and make it look like you have a point: https://www.colorado-family-law.com/parenting-custody/paternity-unmarried-parents

Fatherhood of the children of an unwed mother is established AT BIRTH. Like in every state, unless you have proof otherwise. The father is only responsible for paying for part of the birth if the state of Colorado’s social services paid for them.

Insurance, little things like carpooling, all this stuff is predicated on BIRTH. That time when the products of concept becomes it’s own person, breathing its own air, able to take in nutrition from something other than the nutrients sucked from its mother’s body. You forced birthers are such freaks who have spent so much time in your little misogyny bubbles that you’ve lost touch with reality.

Try again. You’re running a lazy Google search instead of actually reading the law.

CRS 19-4-105.5.3 explicitly permits the filing of a paternity action prior to the birth of a child.

CRS 19-4-116(3)(c) explicitly states that bills for pregnancy and childbirth expenses are recoverable in a paternity action. No requirement that costs be incurred by governmental entities.

Once you read the code for yourself, please do come back and admit you were wrong (although an apology would be nice).

https://leg.colorado.gov/agencies/office-legislative-legal-services/colorado-revised-statutes

....but such payments are "recoverable" after birth. If life begins at conception, why is the mother having to "recover" anything? She should be paid by the alleged father in real-time.

Interesting that the law treats birth as the qualifying event upon which recovery can be premised.

I don’t think that is the correct interpretation.

19-4-105.5.3 permits the institution of legal paternity determinations prior to birth.

19-4-116(c)(3) provides they PREGNANCY, child birth and other costs may be rolled in to child support.

Elsewhere (sorry, I’m too lazy to find an exact cite), the code permits the court to award child support at any time after paternity has been established.

Read it all together, and in Colorado, a father is legally OBLIGATED for pregnancy expenses prior to birth to be paid by the father prior to birth. From a practical standpoint, legal enforcement may not happen against deadbeats until after birth, but that’s a different issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Laws vary by state, but, in most states, fathers are responsible for financial support during pregnancy and including birth. The OBLIGATION exists back to the moment of conception even if the ENFORCEMENT of the obligation doesn’t begin until post birth. In some states, like Colorado, paternity can be established pre birth and pregnancy expenses can be enforced against the father of the unborn child prior to birth.

You’re lying. Hell, I’ll be generous. You’re twisting words to try and make it look like you have a point: https://www.colorado-family-law.com/parenting-custody/paternity-unmarried-parents

Fatherhood of the children of an unwed mother is established AT BIRTH. Like in every state, unless you have proof otherwise. The father is only responsible for paying for part of the birth if the state of Colorado’s social services paid for them.

Insurance, little things like carpooling, all this stuff is predicated on BIRTH. That time when the products of concept becomes it’s own person, breathing its own air, able to take in nutrition from something other than the nutrients sucked from its mother’s body. You forced birthers are such freaks who have spent so much time in your little misogyny bubbles that you’ve lost touch with reality.

Try again. You’re running a lazy Google search instead of actually reading the law.

CRS 19-4-105.5.3 explicitly permits the filing of a paternity action prior to the birth of a child.

CRS 19-4-116(3)(c) explicitly states that bills for pregnancy and childbirth expenses are recoverable in a paternity action. No requirement that costs be incurred by governmental entities.

Once you read the code for yourself, please do come back and admit you were wrong (although an apology would be nice).

https://leg.colorado.gov/agencies/office-legislative-legal-services/colorado-revised-statutes

....but such payments are "recoverable" after birth. If life begins at conception, why is the mother having to "recover" anything? She should be paid by the alleged father in real-time.

Interesting that the law treats birth as the qualifying event upon which recovery can be premised.

I don’t think that is the correct interpretation.

19-4-105.5.3 permits the institution of legal paternity determinations prior to birth.

19-4-116(c)(3) provides they PREGNANCY, child birth and other costs may be rolled in to child support.

Elsewhere (sorry, I’m too lazy to find an exact cite), the code permits the court to award child support at any time after paternity has been established.

Read it all together, and in Colorado, a father is legally OBLIGATED for pregnancy expenses prior to birth to be paid by the father prior to birth. From a practical standpoint, legal enforcement may not happen against deadbeats until after birth, but that’s a different issue.

What the law permits and what the law actually does are different things. Even if the court does allow expenses to be recoverable, it means nothing if the court orders dad to pay $200/month all in and dad just refuses to pay it. Support actions aren’t a top priority in most places. Mom’s on her own no matter what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another. There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes. We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves.

Sotomayor asks how anti-abortion argument is ‘anything but a religious view’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the Mississippi solicitor general during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Dec. 1. (The Washington Post)
The motives behind the antiabortion movement become clear when one recognizes that even though abortion is legal, the incidence of abortion has dropped dramatically. Hence, permissive laws do not mean the procedure happens more often. If we want to reduce abortions, we arguably should be doing precisely what we have been doing over the past few decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/01/fundamental-deception-behind-pro-life-movement/

"In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another?"

VACCINE MANDATES

I mean that's just ridiculous.

A. You don't get arrested if you don't take the vaccine, you just have to find another job
B. A vaccine is not an entity that uses you to sustain itself, it's the instructions to help your body fight off a disease
C. Are you seriously equating getting a couple of shots to pregnancy and childbirth? That is hilarious. Thanks for a great start to my weekend!

[Anonymous]

So now conservatives are such weak individuals that getting vaccines and wearing masks is as challenging and all encompassing as pregnancy and birth? My god. Totally freaking unreal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So now conservatives are such weak individuals that getting vaccines and wearing masks is as challenging and all encompassing as pregnancy and birth? My god. Totally freaking unreal.

Just admit there is no such thing as "my body my choice" anymore.

[Anonymous]

Even in the face of what we saw at the court on Wednesday — when at least five of the six conservatives made clear their intention to overturn Roe — press accounts continued offering euphemisms and weasel words, about “inconsistencies” or “contradictions.”
But sometimes the right puts its purposes in the open. There was a particularly striking exchange between Laura Ingraham and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) on Fox News, where Ingraham grew inexplicably enraged over the mere possibility that Roe might not be overturned.

“If we have six Republican appointees on this court,” she said, "after all the money that’s been raised, the Federalist Society, all these big fat-cat dinners — I’m sorry, I’m pissed about this — if this court with six justices cannot do the right thing here,” then Republicans should “blow it up” and pass some kind of law limiting the court’s authority.

“I would do that in a heartbeat,” Cruz responded.

In other words: We bought this court, and we’d better get what we paid for.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another. There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes. We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves.

Sotomayor asks how anti-abortion argument is ‘anything but a religious view’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the Mississippi solicitor general during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Dec. 1. (The Washington Post)
The motives behind the antiabortion movement become clear when one recognizes that even though abortion is legal, the incidence of abortion has dropped dramatically. Hence, permissive laws do not mean the procedure happens more often. If we want to reduce abortions, we arguably should be doing precisely what we have been doing over the past few decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/01/fundamental-deception-behind-pro-life-movement/

"In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another?"

VACCINE MANDATES

I mean that's just ridiculous.

A. You don't get arrested if you don't take the vaccine, you just have to find another job
B. A vaccine is not an entity that uses you to sustain itself, it's the instructions to help your body fight off a disease
C. Are you seriously equating getting a couple of shots to pregnancy and childbirth? That is hilarious. Thanks for a great start to my weekend!

Control over my body is control over my body. Doesn't matter if we are talking about vaccines, pregnancy, or any other medical procedure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a novel thought for conservatives:

If you don't believe in abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.

Leave everyone else alone. Leave them their FREEDOM and LIBERTY you claim to support. Their business is none of your business.

It's not about your body, dumbass, it's about the other one living inside it. We protect children who cannot protect themselves. The right to life is constitutionally protected.

It isn’t another life until it can live outside of mine. It really isn’t that hard. Also I have to agree to the terms to grow it since it’s my body. Feel free to have your own.

That argument is scary. No child could survive without assistance until years after birth. And, shocker!, some freaks actually make the argument that post birth abortion should be legal using this very argument.

Down right evil thinking. I always tried to give people the benefit of the doubt, but anonymous posters on this board confirm how selfish and heartless people really are.