“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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can't force people to give birth. The fight for legal abortions has to start over. Shame on this court

They can let women die, like Savita Halapanavar in Ireland.

JFC. There are no individual states in Ireland. There are counties that must follow the country laws. This is why you WANT state decisions.

And you have individual states here poised to outlaw abortion. You honestly think a similar situation couldn't happen in one of those states?

We have 50 states.

So, just encourage those women to cross state lines to seek out health care. Ok. Totally reasonable. Super easy, I'm sure.

Yes, in some cases they will have to cross state lines. People are crossing our border in droves and it’s not super easy for them to get to that point. But they do it. Again, in droves. Where there’s a will there’s a way

And I'm sure none of these pro-life movements have given any thought to criminalizing those who may seek an out of state abortion. They'll be perfectly fine with that, right?

They love Rep. Scott Desjarlais of Tennessee, when he told both his wife AND his mistress to get abortions! Amazing, really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can't force people to give birth. The fight for legal abortions has to start over. Shame on this court

They can let women die, like Savita Halapanavar in Ireland.

JFC. There are no individual states in Ireland. There are counties that must follow the country laws. This is why you WANT state decisions.

And you have individual states here poised to outlaw abortion. You honestly think a similar situation couldn't happen in one of those states?

We have 50 states.

Good star? I guess?

[Anonymous]

Casey.
Loving.
Obergefell.

Alito made a to-do list in that majority opinion of cases he wants to overturn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Congrats RBG!! Your selfishness will also be part of your legacy.

- democrat

Hubris can indeed destroy someone’s legacy in one fell swoop. This delusional and stupid idea that she could somehow get to decide when to die will apparently live on to unwind much of her life’s work.

Unfortunately this poetic history lesson is coming at our expense.

[Anonymous]

F Bernie. We’ve already lost our protections in the courts, now he wants to strip us of the only thing holding the GOP back when they re-take the House and Senate? The stupidity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congrats RBG!! Your selfishness will also be part of your legacy.

- democrat

Hubris can indeed destroy someone’s legacy in one fell swoop. This delusional and stupid idea that she could somehow get to decide when to die will apparently live on to unwind much of her life’s work.

Unfortunately this poetic history lesson is coming at our expense.

The decision of RBG to deny Obama under a supermajority the opportunity to replace her (a two-time cancer and stroke survivor!) in favor of a pact with Clinton for optics is the most unintentionally evil thing she’s ever done. And I truly believe Hilary realized on 2016 election night she doomed women for generations with her hubris and push to literally break a glass ceiling in Javitts over everything else. She should have quietly retired in 2009.

I don’t know if it was evil or not but it was definitely stupid, and stupid is bad enough on its own. She drank her own kool aid and thought the laws of nature no longer apply to her. Dumb, just dumb, no matter how talented a jurist she was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:F Bernie. We’ve already lost our protections in the courts, now he wants to strip us of the only thing holding the GOP back when they re-take the House and Senate? The stupidity.

I think he knows this is not going to happen but part of me thinks the filibuster is the root of all of this. When the government can’t pass any legislation under either party that’s where this idea that they are both the same comes from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F Bernie. We’ve already lost our protections in the courts, now he wants to strip us of the only thing holding the GOP back when they re-take the House and Senate? The stupidity.

I think he knows this is not going to happen but part of me thinks the filibuster is the root of all of this. When the government can’t pass any legislation under either party that’s where this idea that they are both the same comes from.

I’d rather they not pass controversial legislation (bipartisan votes are still going through!) than have our civil liberties and protections from a century ago stripped because a 77-year-old wants to have a baby allowance bill knowing full well he’ll be in the ground by the time abortions for their mothers is stripped nationwide in a few midterms.

It’s selfish. It’s selfish social policies that don’t care that generations have fought and bled to get to where we are now. Protections of civil liberties first!

[Anonymous]

He’s 80. So even worse.

[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:I know I'm in the minority on DCUM but I think this is good news and I hope it comes to pass.

You're in the minority full stop.

The vast majority of Americans do not believe the government should be making health care decisions for you.

Like I said, I know I'm in the minority on DCUM. And abortion is not a "health care decision," in the vast majority of cases.

Choosing not to give birth, which is statistically more dangerous than having an abortion, is a “health care decision” in every effing case.

Then don't get yourself pregnant. Problem solved.

Nobody gets themselves pregnant.

Clumsily worded but point remains. If you have such a health care issue with giving birth, then see to it that you don't get pregnant.

My “health care issue” with giving birth occurred when I was diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy. We had been trying for years and desperately wanted that to be a healthy pregnancy. I begged the doctor to find a way to make it work.
An acquaintance’s “health care issue” with giving birth occurred when her (very much wanted, planned for, IVF) baby was diagnosed with a fatal condition that also impacted her health and future ability to carry another pregnancy. She found out during a routine ultrasound at 19 weeks.
A college friend’s health care issue” with giving birth was the additional mental trauma that would result from being forced to carry to term a pregnancy that was caused by rape. A rape she could only remember in flashbacks, because the guy had slipped rohypnol into her drink at a party. She was suicidal already before she even learned about the pregnancy. Thank God for Planned Parenthood.

In all three cases, most states allow abortion. Rare and legal.

Ohio state legislators drafted a bill that would send doctors to jail if they didn’t implant an ectopic pregnancy into the uterus, a feat that is medically impossible.

HB413 in the Ohio Legislature includes a provision that doctors must attempt to "reimplant" ectopic pregnancies in a woman's uterus if applicable.

More than half of Republicans don’t think the current President actually won the presidential election. Do you trust these people to parse “applicable”?

+1000
This isn't applicable because no such procedure actually exists. And yet another example why politicians shouldn't be involved in legislating medical decisions.

Yet I am sure you are 100% in favor of gov run universal healthcare. This is just a microcosm of what happens with a party majority running our healthcare.

[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:I know I'm in the minority on DCUM but I think this is good news and I hope it comes to pass.

You're in the minority full stop.

The vast majority of Americans do not believe the government should be making health care decisions for you.

Like I said, I know I'm in the minority on DCUM. And abortion is not a "health care decision," in the vast majority of cases.

Choosing not to give birth, which is statistically more dangerous than having an abortion, is a “health care decision” in every effing case.

Then don't get yourself pregnant. Problem solved.

Nobody gets themselves pregnant.

Clumsily worded but point remains. If you have such a health care issue with giving birth, then see to it that you don't get pregnant.

My “health care issue” with giving birth occurred when I was diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy. We had been trying for years and desperately wanted that to be a healthy pregnancy. I begged the doctor to find a way to make it work.
An acquaintance’s “health care issue” with giving birth occurred when her (very much wanted, planned for, IVF) baby was diagnosed with a fatal condition that also impacted her health and future ability to carry another pregnancy. She found out during a routine ultrasound at 19 weeks.
A college friend’s health care issue” with giving birth was the additional mental trauma that would result from being forced to carry to term a pregnancy that was caused by rape. A rape she could only remember in flashbacks, because the guy had slipped rohypnol into her drink at a party. She was suicidal already before she even learned about the pregnancy. Thank God for Planned Parenthood.

In all three cases, most states allow abortion. Rare and legal.

Ohio state legislators drafted a bill that would send doctors to jail if they didn’t implant an ectopic pregnancy into the uterus, a feat that is medically impossible.

HB413 in the Ohio Legislature includes a provision that doctors must attempt to "reimplant" ectopic pregnancies in a woman's uterus if applicable.

More than half of Republicans don’t think the current President actually won the presidential election. Do you trust these people to parse “applicable”?

+1000
This isn't applicable because no such procedure actually exists. And yet another example why politicians shouldn't be involved in legislating medical decisions.

Yet I am sure you are 100% in favor of gov run universal healthcare. This is just a microcosm of what happens with a party majority running our healthcare.

The government runs healthcare in a majority of functional countries in the world and it works fine.

The issue here is that politicians are overly interested in a very specific medical procedure as a propaganda tool. American insanity at its finest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F Bernie. We’ve already lost our protections in the courts, now he wants to strip us of the only thing holding the GOP back when they re-take the House and Senate? The stupidity.

I think he knows this is not going to happen but part of me thinks the filibuster is the root of all of this. When the government can’t pass any legislation under either party that’s where this idea that they are both the same comes from.

I’d rather they not pass controversial legislation (bipartisan votes are still going through!) than have our civil liberties and protections from a century ago stripped because a 77-year-old wants to have a baby allowance bill knowing full well he’ll be in the ground by the time abortions for their mothers is stripped nationwide in a few midterms.

It’s selfish. It’s selfish social policies that don’t care that generations have fought and bled to get to where we are now. Protections of civil liberties first!

This is quite simply an anti-Democratic view. In a Democracy the majority gets to make decisions. Perhaps if Republicans actually pushed through their legislation of choice voters would recognize where their interests align.

And you denigrate “baby allowance” bills. Today’s baby is tomorrow’s voter, and we live in a country where we decline to take care of and educate our babies, and then we wring our hands when they vote for Republicans.

[Anonymous]

ITA. The leaker needs to be identified and disbarred. Not sure any actual laws were broken, but this cannot go unpunished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't this the judicial activism that the cons whine so much about?

No, because there is no right to abortion in the Constitution. It’s a state issue and always has been.

So was it in state constitutions before SCOTUS took it up?

Anything not specifically stated in the Constitution falls to the states. That’s how it’s been since it was written. Amend or shut up.

You didn’t answer the question.

I did. It’s not judicial activism. It’s upholding the Constitution. Amend or shut up.

Dp - just se we are clear - you’re espousing a strict construction view - meaning all implied rights are void. So, no right to vote or travel?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats have just won the 2022 midterms.

Yup. A dem leaked it for sure. Gonna suck to be an incumbent in a dumbpublican state.

Not sure it was a Dem. If the draft judgment is accurate, Roberts is in the minority on draft Alito judgment describing health care providers as 'abortionists'.

If you're looking for who leaked this I'd put the lib law clerk 3rd after someone from Roberts' team and someone from a non-Alito majority judge worried about how far the draft judgment was going.

Any left leaning individual who was actually following this was predicting this judgment. That's why I would put the clerks for the left leaners down the list.

The caveat to that would be someone from Breyer's office who decided it was a good time to flip the lighter on gas puddle that is SCOTUS.

Track record on this forum has not been good regarding speculation.