“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Arguably it's Dems who view women’s (and men's) bodies as chattel, to be sacrificed at will. Bye folks, I see we're getting nowhere. |
Anonymous
You mean other democracies where legislatures cannot ban abortion because Women’s rights are protected? |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
Dp- do us all a favor. Just remember that our elections are compromised, just like all the republicans have said. So don’t bother to vote. Remember that, ok? Great. |
Anonymous
Sounds like I hit the mark! Bye forever. See ya in November. |
Anonymous
Anti-choice folks are asking SCOTUS to hear a case about fetal personhood. If the court grants cert and if there are 5 votes for fetal personhood, a federal law allowing abortion would be unconstitutional. We need to expand the court and the ERA should be recognized as duly ratified to avoid this shitshow. https://lawandcrime.com/abortion/anti-abortion-activists-and-2-unborn-children-file-novel-petition-with-supreme-court-seeking-to-clarify-whether-fetuses-have-standing-to-sue-in-u-s-courts/ |
Anonymous
This!!! |
Anonymous
| Putting five conservative Catholics on SCOTUS was an extremely bad idea. They are forcing their minority religious views onto the rest of us. Religious freedom only for conservative Christians but no one else. If they recognize "fetal personhood" then we have moved into full-on Christo-fascist territory and expanding the Court is the only option. |
Anonymous
This has always been the case among misogynists. Women are nothing to them. Their lives, their experiences - none of it matters. Actually nothing matters except for embryonic and fetal life. Why? Because it’s cheap and requires nothing of the people who claim to support life. That coward forced birther has turned tail and run as they haven’t found anyone willing to tolerate their horse puckey here, but on the chance they’re lurking, they should read this: ““The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.” - Pastor Dave Barnhart We see you, forced birthers. We’ve heard your tawdry little excuses for why enslaving women is a good thing in your shriveled little hearts. No one’s buying what you’re selling anymore. |
Anonymous
You are gaslighting. Mississippi legislated to reduce access from the Roe/Casey viability standard to 15 weeks because they couldn’t ban it with Roe/Casey as the caselaw. 15 weeks is not their position. That law was just to get the question to SCOTUS. It actually would be easier for the 5 SC Justices to overturn a federal law than it was to overturn Roe. With Roe they had to overturn a 50-year precedent. With a new law they don’t have that burden. They just say Congress doesn’t have the authority in the Constitution. |
Anonymous
No, you have it wrong. Legislation has nothing to do with it. First, comes the Constitution. That give us some rights. Sometimes various parties' Constitutional rights come into conflict, or a law is passed that violates someone's Consitutional rights, and the Court is left to sort it out. That's what Roe did. The Court was called upon to answer whose Constitutional rights prevail when they are in conflict. To do so, it had to first determine whether, and, if so, when, those Constitutional rights were in conflict. That is not a matter for legislation; it is a matter of Constitutional interpretation as to whether one or the other or both have rights regarding their physical bodies. It is not for the legislative body to decide whether or when someone has Constitutional rights. By saying states can pass any abortion law they want, the Court is saying women do not have Constitutional rights to bodily autonomy. Otherwise, the ruling would mean that the Court thinks it is fine for states to strip women of Constitutional rights, which is clearly wrong. |
Anonymous
Didn't our Founding Fathers demand a separation of church and state because they had seen what the papists did to Europe? |
Anonymous
Ok, Jan. 
|
Anonymous
Then we should be able to claim every egg and sperm as a dependent. |