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

[Anonymous]

I seriously cannot believe overturning Roe v Wade is happening. I am old enough to remember teens getting pregnant and giving the baby up for adoption. A horrible and life altering situation. Emotionally devastating. Then they were expected to “just get on with teenage life…” I have no respect for ACB. Or the other justices supporting this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I seriously cannot believe overturning Roe v Wade is happening. I am old enough to remember teens getting pregnant and giving the baby up for adoption. A horrible and life altering situation. Emotionally devastating. Then they were expected to “just get on with teenage life…” I have no respect for ACB. Or the other justices supporting this.

+1
I am from well after Roe was made legal but I had classmates whose religious freak parents made them carry to term and adopt out their kids. Unconscionable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1000

That will be true as long as pregnancies continue to not be contagious.
You don’t have that right to infect others.
Just like you can drink and drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.”

Other than eternal dim bulb Susan Collins, who took those rat busters seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1000

That will be true as long as pregnancies continue to not be contagious.
You don’t have that right to infect others.
Just like you can drink and drive.

DP
Don’t take this stupid bait. No one is forced to get a vaccine in this country. You have a choice. The choice comes with consequences. But no one is telling you it’s illegal to decline to get Covid vaccine. Furthermore, a woman’s life is being put at risk when she is forced by the state to carry a pregnancy. No ones putting their life at risk getting a Covid shot.
GMAFB

[Anonymous]

This is what we get for the GOP having long since abandoned decency. The SC is illegitimate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree that we should have a choice. A choice to remain pregnant or not and a choice to be vaccinated. Both choices currently exist, only the right to choose abortion is at risk.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree that we should have a choice. A choice to remain pregnant or not and a choice to be vaccinated. Both choices currently exist, only the right to choose abortion is at risk.

+1

Both choices come with risks. If you don’t get vaccinated you risk losing your job. If you don’t get an abortion you risk losing your job, and your life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I seriously cannot believe overturning Roe v Wade is happening. I am old enough to remember teens getting pregnant and giving the baby up for adoption. A horrible and life altering situation. Emotionally devastating. Then they were expected to “just get on with teenage life…” I have no respect for ACB. Or the other justices supporting this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree that we should have a choice. A choice to remain pregnant or not and a choice to be vaccinated. Both choices currently exist, only the right to choose abortion is at risk.

Im pro choice but let’s stick to the facts and avoid hyperbole. Choice to get an abortion isn’t at risk. If the Roe is struck down then the right to an abortion would be decided at the state level and the majority of states would continue to support pro choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree that we should have a choice. A choice to remain pregnant or not and a choice to be vaccinated. Both choices currently exist, only the right to choose abortion is at risk.

Im pro choice but let’s stick to the facts and avoid hyperbole. Choice to get an abortion isn’t at risk. If the Roe is struck down then the right to an abortion would be decided at the state level and the majority of states would continue to support pro choice.

You are so naive.

Just ask the woman in Ireland who died a slow death by sepsis because she couldn't get an abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree that we should have a choice. A choice to remain pregnant or not and a choice to be vaccinated. Both choices currently exist, only the right to choose abortion is at risk.

Im pro choice but let’s stick to the facts and avoid hyperbole. Choice to get an abortion isn’t at risk. If the Roe is struck down then the right to an abortion would be decided at the state level and the majority of states would continue to support pro choice.

You are so naive.

Just ask the woman in Ireland who died a slow death by sepsis because she couldn't get an abortion.

+1
I said it over in Website Feedback and I’ll say it here, too: it’s time for some of you to snap out of your stupor. You assumed that the GOP were good people who just had other beliefs; that’s false. They’re bad people with toxic misogyny at the core of their belief system.

You assumed that everyone now agreed that women were people of the same inherent worth that men have. That’s false too. These fundie duckers don’t think you’re worth jack. They think your career, your beliefs, your feelings - it’s all less important than men. (As to the fact that it’s a literal People of Praise cult member handmaiden delivering the death blow? These POSs always have a Trojan horse. Phyllis Schlafly, for one, Amy Bullcrap for another).

Multiple states have trigger laws with varying forced birth laws waiting, Sword of Damocles, to be put into law the minute the cheating GOP got Roe removed. What do you think is going to happen in those states? You think every thing is just going to be balmy winds and smooth sailing? You want to find out which unfortunate pregnant woman loses her life because of some pregnancy emergency she’s facing and the doctors don’t feel they can act on without facing a lawsuit and losing their licenses? Not every pregnant woman is going to get magically lifted over state lines to state where women are considered people. Some of you are going to die. Your ability to get an abortion because you don’t want to be pregnant is very much going to be in danger. Hope it felt good to feel smug while you pretended we spoke with hyperbole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I seriously cannot believe overturning Roe v Wade is happening. I am old enough to remember teens getting pregnant and giving the baby up for adoption. A horrible and life altering situation. Emotionally devastating. Then they were expected to “just get on with teenage life…” I have no respect for ACB. Or the other justices supporting this.

+1
I am from well after Roe was made legal but I had classmates whose religious freak parents made them carry to term and adopt out their kids. Unconscionable.

It’s much better to kill the baby. Not emotionally devastating at all.