Roe v Wade struck down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The right to reproduce is the most basic right of all, next to the right to live. Everything else is meaningless. Abortion is baked into the human experience. It’s not surprising to me the Founders took it for granted. In fact, until very recently this obsession with fetuses was a fringe Catholic belief only.

Speak for yourself.

Look, you might be an ignoramus but historians have these things called records that show things called facts.

[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:

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.

If you think about it, it was always about the states rights to infringe upon the fundamental liberty of their inhabitants that was at stake. Boggles the damn mind how conservatives have been able to spin their fascism as love of liberty.

It's because their party is comprised entirely of people who are wealthy and want more tax cuts, politicians who put party over country, and millions of gullible voters with the critical thinking skills of a fruit fly.

Yes. Succinctly stated. What are we supposed to do about that?

I have no idea how to reach people who revel in their ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Here’s a summary:

https://www.history.com/topics/womens-rights/roe-v-wade

[Anonymous]

Feels like the 1950s are making a comeback. Looks like the gays are next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Cannon fodder. Reliably undereducated, miserable red voters. Future Medicaid beneficiaries - which Florida Republican was defrauding the federal government to the tune of millions? It’s a whole racket.

And don’t forget that these six regressives are Christianists. They embrace an Old Testament religion (but with the Jewish introspection and general menschy quality that humanizes a book so old). They love causing pain, misery and creating chaos. They are the religious tyranny that the founders warned us about.

Well we can't have slavery anymore (at least not yet) so this is a way to create a poor working class to do the work rich, usually white people don't want to do.

Exactly, we're running out of poor countries to exploit for labor so we have to create a cheap labor force here. That's why they never go after businesses for hiring immigrants, only the immigrants themselves, and a select few, to make an example. Keeps them underground, down-trodden and unable to fight for their rights. Prime fodder for exploitation.

[Anonymous]

If I were a brown/black young person in one of the states where abortion is restricted, I'd seriously try to move to another more liberal state. Let the evangelical whites have 4 or more kids and manage it on on their own. I assume that BC will still be available in the DC area in the years to come. It's like asylum at this point.

[Anonymous]

Where does it go after this decision?

[Anonymous]

I hope all you prolifers are happy!! Enjoy your stupid babies!! Just leave gay rights and blacks rights alone, ok?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I were a brown/black young person in one of the states where abortion is restricted, I'd seriously try to move to another more liberal state. Let the evangelical whites have 4 or more kids and manage it on on their own. I assume that BC will still be available in the DC area in the years to come. It's like asylum at this point.

Why so the Christian Taliban can entrench itself in the heart of the country?

[Anonymous]

Lying liars who lie.

Here they all are claiming Roe was settled law.

https://fb.watch/dRLbzMni9Q/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Cannon fodder. Reliably undereducated, miserable red voters. Future Medicaid beneficiaries - which Florida Republican was defrauding the federal government to the tune of millions? It’s a whole racket.

And don’t forget that these six regressives are Christianists. They embrace an Old Testament religion (but with the Jewish introspection and general menschy quality that humanizes a book so old). They love causing pain, misery and creating chaos. They are the religious tyranny that the founders warned us about.

Well we can't have slavery anymore (at least not yet) so this is a way to create a poor working class to do the work rich, usually white people don't want to do.

This isn't actually true. Read the 13th Amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Southern Republicans will definitely go for this under the thinnest veneer of legalism and due process.

Been there done that. Hellloooo, ever heard of a chain gang?

[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.

We'll see if they have that right because certainly there will be a case coming. They are trying to restrict the right = we'll see what the Sup Ct says. Do you feel confident they will interpret the right to travel the same way we do?

[Anonymous]

Has anybody read the whole opinion? DH just read most of it and said that Thomas' opinion basically got rid of due process from the past century. Is that accurate?

[Anonymous]

Instead of breathalyzer we'll be taking pregnancy tests

[Anonymous]

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.

+1

Sorry, no. What makes you think abortion should EVER be voted on? Do we allow other medical procedures to come up for a popular vote? And what about women who already live in Mississippi? Acting as if mobility is just a snap is egregiously tone deaf.