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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What you mean is, choice will still exist for women who live in some states, and women who have money nationwide. This ruling only removes rights from poor women, victims of domestic violence, and minors who are being abused. That’s not a subset of the population the GOP cares about anyway.

Last time I checked it was fairly easy to travel across state lines.

Try doing it from Texas. When every neighboring state has a law already in place that will automatically make abortion illegal the minute Roe is overturned.

Oh, I hadn’t realized Texas had closed its borders.

https://www.axios.com/distance-abortion-roe-supreme-court-texas-17ae0d8c-7882-408c-b6f9-bf6ece0f22a2.html
“Louisiana residents seeking abortion care would have to travel the longest distances, 666 miles one-way.”

Who cares about the low-income women without a car or gas money? Or time to take extra days off of work or away from their families. Fck those poor sluts. Right?

You people are disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What you mean is, choice will still exist for women who live in some states, and women who have money nationwide. This ruling only removes rights from poor women, victims of domestic violence, and minors who are being abused. That’s not a subset of the population the GOP cares about anyway.

Last time I checked it was fairly easy to travel across state lines.

Try doing it from Texas. When every neighboring state has a law already in place that will automatically make abortion illegal the minute Roe is overturned.

Oh, I hadn’t realized Texas had closed its borders.

Do you realize that places in Texas are very far from other states? And that virtually all those states will outlaw abortion if Roe is overturned?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, it is posts like these that make me less inclined to support the left.

I am, like most Americans, somewhere in the middle on abortion. I want abortion legal, but I also find the people claiming that it is the woman's choice up to the point of delivery nuts.

The simple fact is that the left hasn't been able to win the abortion debate in the public sphere and has for decades relied entirely on the Supreme Court. As long as the court rules their way it is "legitimate," but if it ever changes then suddenly it is evil incarnate, etc, etc.

There are so many other issues in the political sphere, many of them more important than abortion to me.

Perhaps if the SC does overturn Roe v Wade the proper legislative process can address the issue, that is what it is designed to do afterall.

No one is claiming this. This is not a thing. Seriously. Please read up on who gets late term abortions and why. https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/

Also, one excellent way to end later term abortions for a non-medical reason is to provide access to EARLY abortions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the reason that carrying a child to term and then placing the baby up for adoption is mentally harmful, causes feelings of regret and sadness, vs aborting the baby and not having mental harm and feelings of regret and sadness?

If religious people use the state to violate your bodily integrity against your will for nine months, but really for all time given the fact that pregnancy and birth causes all kinds of changes in a woman’s body, do you think that that might cause mental harm?

<Rape trigger warning> For another example: rape hurts. Sex a woman wants usually does not. Rape is not necessarily any more violent than regular intercourse (though it can be), it’s the overwhelming of your rights as a person to say no, “I do not want this,” the violation of your body, every fiber of your brain screams against it (and frequently people’s body’s, too). This is the same thing. A thing undertaken with your consent is different than a thing undertaken against your consent. The state, even acting as a proxy for the religious feelings of forced birth misogynists, does not have the right to compel a citizen to use their body to grow a human against their will just like they can’t force us to donate a kidney, liver parts, marrow or even blood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you realize that places in Texas are very far from other states? And that virtually all those states will outlaw abortion if Roe is overturned?

You know the forced birthers don’t care, right? The cruelty is the point. Much like how conservatives can’t tell jokes because their inherent anger and meanness get in the way, here they don’t actually care about life. If they did care about life, they’d care about the living, breathing human being who is statistically already a mother and her experiences in the world.

The cruelty is the point. They want to punish women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the reason that carrying a child to term and then placing the baby up for adoption is mentally harmful, causes feelings of regret and sadness, vs aborting the baby and not having mental harm and feelings of regret and sadness?

If religious people use the state to violate your bodily integrity against your will for nine months, but really for all time given the fact that pregnancy and birth causes all kinds of changes in a woman’s body, do you think that that might cause mental harm?

<Rape trigger warning> For another example: rape hurts. Sex a woman wants usually does not. Rape is not necessarily any more violent than regular intercourse (though it can be), it’s the overwhelming of your rights as a person to say no, “I do not want this,” the violation of your body, every fiber of your brain screams against it (and frequently people’s body’s, too). This is the same thing. A thing undertaken with your consent is different than a thing undertaken against your consent. The state, even acting as a proxy for the religious feelings of forced birth misogynists, does not have the right to compel a citizen to use their body to grow a human against their will just like they can’t force us to donate a kidney, liver parts, marrow or even blood.

There was nothing about rape in either example. It was plainly about a teenage girl who had become pregnant and carried the baby to term and placed the baby for adoption vs aborted the baby.

Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the reason that carrying a child to term and then placing the baby up for adoption is mentally harmful, causes feelings of regret and sadness, vs aborting the baby and not having mental harm and feelings of regret and sadness?

If religious people use the state to violate your bodily integrity against your will for nine months, but really for all time given the fact that pregnancy and birth causes all kinds of changes in a woman’s body, do you think that that might cause mental harm?

<Rape trigger warning> For another example: rape hurts. Sex a woman wants usually does not. Rape is not necessarily any more violent than regular intercourse (though it can be), it’s the overwhelming of your rights as a person to say no, “I do not want this,” the violation of your body, every fiber of your brain screams against it (and frequently people’s body’s, too). This is the same thing. A thing undertaken with your consent is different than a thing undertaken against your consent. The state, even acting as a proxy for the religious feelings of forced birth misogynists, does not have the right to compel a citizen to use their body to grow a human against their will just like they can’t force us to donate a kidney, liver parts, marrow or even blood.

There was nothing about rape in either example. It was plainly about a teenage girl who had become pregnant and carried the baby to term and placed the baby for adoption vs aborted the baby.

Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

PP is equating pro-birthers to rapists.

People who want to force women to do something they don’t want to do.

An apt comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the reason that carrying a child to term and then placing the baby up for adoption is mentally harmful, causes feelings of regret and sadness, vs aborting the baby and not having mental harm and feelings of regret and sadness?

If religious people use the state to violate your bodily integrity against your will for nine months, but really for all time given the fact that pregnancy and birth causes all kinds of changes in a woman’s body, do you think that that might cause mental harm?

<Rape trigger warning> For another example: rape hurts. Sex a woman wants usually does not. Rape is not necessarily any more violent than regular intercourse (though it can be), it’s the overwhelming of your rights as a person to say no, “I do not want this,” the violation of your body, every fiber of your brain screams against it (and frequently people’s body’s, too). This is the same thing. A thing undertaken with your consent is different than a thing undertaken against your consent. The state, even acting as a proxy for the religious feelings of forced birth misogynists, does not have the right to compel a citizen to use their body to grow a human against their will just like they can’t force us to donate a kidney, liver parts, marrow or even blood.

There was nothing about rape in either example. It was plainly about a teenage girl who had become pregnant and carried the baby to term and placed the baby for adoption vs aborted the baby.

Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

PP is equating pro-birthers to rapists.

People who want to force women to do something they don’t want to do.

An apt comparison.

I am asking why once a woman is already pregnant it is considered more traumatic to carry the baby to term and adopt him or her into a family than aborting and ending the life of your own child. There was no rape in 99% of cases women seek abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, it is posts like these that make me less inclined to support the left.

I am, like most Americans, somewhere in the middle on abortion. I want abortion legal, but I also find the people claiming that it is the woman's choice up to the point of delivery nuts.

The simple fact is that the left hasn't been able to win the abortion debate in the public sphere and has for decades relied entirely on the Supreme Court. As long as the court rules their way it is "legitimate," but if it ever changes then suddenly it is evil incarnate, etc, etc.

There are so many other issues in the political sphere, many of them more important than abortion to me.

Perhaps if the SC does overturn Roe v Wade the proper legislative process can address the issue, that is what it is designed to do afterall.

+100
Thank you - finally, a voice of reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you realize that places in Texas are very far from other states? And that virtually all those states will outlaw abortion if Roe is overturned?

DP. Evidence for this absurd statement?

How many times did you post in this thread? Just because you’re just tuning for the first time on this issue and, assuming you are the one who called me names, calling people names who have been paying attention for years does mean any of this is new.

Hello, pro choice pp. Welcome to the world of “trigger laws.” Enjoy your waning rights! Oh, I’m sorry. I hope this isn’t too “hyperbolic” or “extreme.” https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-policy-absence-roe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you realize that places in Texas are very far from other states? And that virtually all those states will outlaw abortion if Roe is overturned?

DP. Evidence for this absurd statement?

How many times did you post in this thread? Just because you’re just tuning for the first time on this issue and, assuming you are the one who called me names, calling people names who have been paying attention for years does mean any of this is new.

Hello, pro choice pp. Welcome to the world of “trigger laws.” Enjoy your waning rights! Oh, I’m sorry. I hope this isn’t too “hyperbolic” or “extreme.” https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-policy-absence-roe

+1 Thank you PP for providing evidence for what I thought was obvious. Eight states have pre-Roe bans that were never repealed and will make abortion immediately illegal if Roe is overturned. Twelve more states have trigger bans. Only 15 states have laws that would protect abortion if Roe is overturned.

[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:

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.

What you mean is, choice will still exist for women who live in some states, and women who have money nationwide. This ruling only removes rights from poor women, victims of domestic violence, and minors who are being abused. That’s not a subset of the population the GOP cares about anyway.

Last time I checked it was fairly easy to travel across state lines.

Try doing it from Texas. When every neighboring state has a law already in place that will automatically make abortion illegal the minute Roe is overturned.

Oh, I hadn’t realized Texas had closed its borders.

Do you realize that places in Texas are very far from other states? And that virtually all those states will outlaw abortion if Roe is overturned?

DP. Evidence for this absurd statement?

“Absurd.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you realize that places in Texas are very far from other states? And that virtually all those states will outlaw abortion if Roe is overturned?

DP. Evidence for this absurd statement?

How many times did you post in this thread? Just because you’re just tuning for the first time on this issue and, assuming you are the one who called me names, calling people names who have been paying attention for years does mean any of this is new.

Hello, pro choice pp. Welcome to the world of “trigger laws.” Enjoy your waning rights! Oh, I’m sorry. I hope this isn’t too “hyperbolic” or “extreme.” https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-policy-absence-roe

+1 Thank you PP for providing evidence for what I thought was obvious. Eight states have pre-Roe bans that were never repealed and will make abortion immediately illegal if Roe is overturned. Twelve more states have trigger bans. Only 15 states have laws that would protect abortion if Roe is overturned.

FYI for all the ignoramuses out there, here are the eight pre-Roe ban states:
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Michigan
Mississippi
Oklahoma
West Virginia
Wisconsin

And here are the twelve trigger law states:
Arkansas
Idaho
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah

[Anonymous]

The “moderate” and “reasonable” voices on here sound like either women in total and complete denial of what’s happening or like forced birthers who don’t like the fact that their disgusting politics are laid bare.

[Anonymous]

Regarding “the left hasn’t won the abortion debate”


That is not true. 70% of Americans support Roe.
The left has absolutely won the debate.
And as for legislation being passed to solidify Roe, does anyone think those laws wouldn’t be struck down by this court?