Roe v Wade struck down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Things are pretty different for now. I think you are really hoping that you’re going to be protected, but I think that you and the others who are pretending that this isn’t a completely radical, anti-American decision are deluding yourselves and the tiniest crack of awareness is dawning. You’re next. You’re not protected from the fascism, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Does this guy think anything in today’s decision bans abortion?

Do you think your fundamental ignorance makes your anti-abortion stance more compelling?

So, you think the Supreme Court just outlawed abortion?

Just stop. You poor deluded thing.

It’s a pretty simple question.

The issue of abortion is now back with the voters, where it always should have been. If you don’t like Mississippi’s laws on abortion, don’t move there.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is another cause to which I would give. I don’t think genteel White womanhood should protect these women. There are lots of parallels between this itch of a decision and the enslavement of Black people back in the day, with regressive White women being the ones working to destroy the lives of others then and now. We have more technology now. If they want to make other women feel the burn of oppression, it’s fair that they should feel it, too.

[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.

They can make it illegal, or at least punitively costly, to travel out of state get an abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Things are pretty different for now. I think you are really hoping that you’re going to be protected, but I think that you and the others who are pretending that this isn’t a completely radical, anti-American decision are deluding yourselves and the tiniest crack of awareness is dawning. You’re next. You’re not protected from the fascism, either.

I’m one of the PP’s who never believed Roe was properly decided. So, today”s decision is correct IMO, regardless of whether I’m personally happy with the real world outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Does this guy think anything in today’s decision bans abortion?

Do you think your fundamental ignorance makes your anti-abortion stance more compelling?

So, you think the Supreme Court just outlawed abortion?

Just stop. You poor deluded thing.

It’s a pretty simple question.

The issue of abortion is now back with the voters, where it always should have been. If you don’t like Mississippi’s laws on abortion, don’t move there.

If you don't think they'll work toward a federal ban now, you are completely delusional. Thomas already said he's coming for contraception.

Sure, but that’s a different question.

There won’t be a federal ban any time there’s a Democrat in the White House, so the situation will stay stable in that regard at least until 2025.

Oh well in that case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thank you. And originally it was a constitutional right because?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Things are pretty different for now. I think you are really hoping that you’re going to be protected, but I think that you and the others who are pretending that this isn’t a completely radical, anti-American decision are deluding yourselves and the tiniest crack of awareness is dawning. You’re next. You’re not protected from the fascism, either.

I’m one of the PP’s who never believed Roe was properly decided. So, today”s decision is correct IMO, regardless of whether I’m personally happy with the real world outcome.

That’s because you aren’t that bright. You fundamentally do no understand Roe. Liberty is a fundamental right, or was until today. That was the essence of Roe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Things are pretty different for now. I think you are really hoping that you’re going to be protected, but I think that you and the others who are pretending that this isn’t a completely radical, anti-American decision are deluding yourselves and the tiniest crack of awareness is dawning. You’re next. You’re not protected from the fascism, either.

I’m one of the PP’s who never believed Roe was properly decided. So, today”s decision is correct IMO, regardless of whether I’m personally happy with the real world outcome.

Oh well who cares how many women are forced to give birth to babies they don’t want, derailing their entire lives, who cares how many women die, who cares how much more poverty and child abuse there will be, how many more criminals in 18 years, who cares how chaotic and terrible things become! You get to feel like your reading of a decision is right, and all that matters is that you get to call up your law school classmates and snark “I told you so!”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thank you. And originally it was a constitutional right because?

Because all people are guaranteed liberty under the constitution, which can only be abridged by the state given compelling interests. The states now need no reason to infringe upon your rights. Great job conservatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thank you. And originally it was a constitutional right because?

Because all people are guaranteed liberty under the constitution, which can only be abridged by the state given compelling interests. The states now need no reason to infringe upon your rights. Great job conservatives.

+1

But it never really was about states rights, was it? The only reason "states rights" became a Republican catchphrase is because "we love slavery" and "f*** women and minorities" is déclassé.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Foreseeing increase in homelessness and child sex trafficking.

And serious crime in about eighteen years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thank you. And originally it was a constitutional right because?

Because all people are guaranteed liberty under the constitution, which can only be abridged by the state given compelling interests. The states now need no reason to infringe upon your rights. Great job conservatives.

So originally it was agreed that people had freedom to have an abortion (because why?) and the constitution upheld this freedom but now states can curtail this freedom (based on what)? I'm trying to understand the legality. Not the practicality.

[Anonymous]

I've still never been able to understand why all these bigoted states want to create laws to essentially guarantee there will be more poor and minority children in their state? Children they definitely do not want to pay to feed, house, or educate.