Roe v Wade struck down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a fascinating idea.

The state can restrict travel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming for contraception next ladies. Your husband will have to sign off or it won't even be allowed if you're married

Women, let's stop having sex with men (especially pro life men) until we are recognized as full human beings.

I think it’s fair to say that forced birther men will be having a lot less heterosexual PIV intercourse for the foreseeable future.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a fascinating idea.

The state can restrict travel.

How would they prove you weren't going to the casinos?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: This is not something I thought I would ever actually see.

Kudos to the SCOTUS on this. Always should have been up to the states.

But why exactly? I'm just looking for the rationale why it should be a state decision and not a federal one. I can't have children anymore so just curious for the next generation.

There is no Constitutional right to an abortion. The Constitution enshrines a very small number of fundamental enumerated and unenumerated rights. It doesn’t protect everything that’s good.

In the midst of a massive social and political fight over abortion, Roe and Casey created an obvious fiction: a Constitutional right to “privacy” that included a right to abortion. This removed the issue from the usual political process, and did irreparable damage to the Court and the country. Suddenly the Court was a 100% political institution.

Today’s decision delivers the issue back to the political process, where it always should have been. I am basically pro choice. I also recognize that someone isn’t crazy, or a bigot or a woman hater, if they really feel like aborting a fetus (particularly one that is viable, can feel pain, etc.) is murder or something close to it. It’s a complicated issue. There is going to have to be a compromise that leaves both sides unhappy. And the debate will continue, people will make arguments, mobilize votes. That’s what’s supposed to happen on hotly contested policy questions in a democracy.

So basically the constitution didn't and still doesn't consider having an abortion ending a life? The constitution enshrines life as far as I know. Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.

No idea what your post is even trying to articulate. But the Constitution is different from the Declaration of Independence.

This kind of demonstrates the point though. This illiterate PP is free to have an opinion about abortion rights. But trying to support that opinion in the context of Constitutional law is a joke. You people have no clue what you’re talking about.

True I don't know but I started my request asking why this was a state's rights verses federal decision so I pretty much said I was ignorant from the beginning and never gave an opinion. I'm not a supreme court judge nor do I really have an opinion on abortion either way. I think more children and women should be cared for, but I don't know the law what should be allowed. Pro lifers seem to think it's murder so they would want a federal ruling I'd think that it was taking away a life and not a state's rights. I don't really understand why it was federal for roe-v wade and now why states have the right to decide. I don't really understand the new or old law on this. I'm mainly curious why it was determined that this be a state decision rather than a federal one.

Roe held that there was a constitutional right to an abortion. Applied to the whole country/federal.

This SCOTUS is now saying there is no constitutional right to an abortion. This means that the states can legislate any way they want. So it’s now a state by state issue.

[Anonymous]

As usual, Warren has a plan. Scroll through to see what you can do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As I’ve said, it’s not the life they’re concerned about, it’s the power over women that they want. Forced birther women are aiding the patriarchy and helping hold themselves down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a fascinating idea.

The state can restrict travel.

No, states can’t restrict your right to travel to another state, unless you’ve been convicted by a court of law and lost some of your rights as a result.

It’s why, for example, states couldn’t force people to stay in their home state during the various covid lockdowns, or prevent you from traveling into their territory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As usual, Warren has a plan. Scroll through to see what you can do.

There’s my primary vote! (Unlike dumb people, I voted for Biden in the general) And those are some good ideas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a fascinating idea.

The state can restrict travel.

No, states can’t restrict your right to travel to another state, unless you’ve been convicted by a court of law and lost some of your rights as a result.

It’s why, for example, states couldn’t force people to stay in their home state during the various covid lockdowns, or prevent you from traveling into their territory.

Maybe if America was allowed to teach the actual history of this country, you would be aware of a historical precedent. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/fugitive-slave-act

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At first I was outraged but I realized it was no abortion after 15 weeks.

At 15 weeks, the fetus seems like a baby to me. I remember sharing my pregnancy and a picture of my ultrasound at the beginning of my second trimester and it was indeed a baby. When the baby has a head and body, that is a baby. Assuming you have a baby being on this forum.

This is why the US is becoming ungovernable. Please at least read the headlines before coming here to comment. Roe v. Wade was overturned, meaning individual states will decide. Half of the states are going for a total ban on abortion. NOT a 15 week ban.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a fascinating idea.

The state can restrict travel.

No, states can’t restrict your right to travel to another state, unless you’ve been convicted by a court of law and lost some of your rights as a result.

It’s why, for example, states couldn’t force people to stay in their home state during the various covid lockdowns, or prevent you from traveling into their territory.

Maybe if America was allowed to teach the actual history of this country, you would be aware of a historical precedent. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/fugitive-slave-act

In 1850, slaves didn’t have meaningful rights of any sort that were protected by the US Constitution. Things are pretty different now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Guess who uses all this stuff with nary a thought to their privacy? Not the poorest women who everyone expects will get hit the hardest. Of course law enforcement will bully the easiest people to bully, but there’s nothing stopping someone like me from buying the same data, mining it, and then doxxing these women to their churches and social circles. I’m not convinced that’s a terrible thing. In fact, it may take women seeing them and their daughters and people like them getting their lives destroyed in order to get them to stop working so hard to destroy the lives of others. Some people just lack that empathy gene and you have to force them to experience it for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At first I was outraged but I realized it was no abortion after 15 weeks.

At 15 weeks, the fetus seems like a baby to me. I remember sharing my pregnancy and a picture of my ultrasound at the beginning of my second trimester and it was indeed a baby. When the baby has a head and body, that is a baby. Assuming you have a baby being on this forum.

"seems like a baby TO ME".

To me is the key part, what you choose should not affect what someone else chooses.

PP does not understand the implications of the overturn of RvW and you don't seem to either.