Roe v Wade struck down

[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.

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.

This is the literal truth. It's the whole reason for e-verify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So ironic that Alito goes on and on about there being no deeply rooted right to abortion historically while ignoring the almost 50 years during which that right has been embedded in this country prior to his ruling.

He’s an activist judge and a liar. All of the right wingers are.

[Anonymous]

I do kind of wonder what kind of a day Roberts is having. Clearly having both sides throw verbal bombs at each other and hate each other was not his vision of a conservative utopia.
I also kind of wonder what his daughter thinks. She's a college student. Is this a proud day for her, or does she have kind of a sick feeling in her stomach?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alito’s reasoning is atrocious and incorrect—abortion had been around for eons.

And also restrictions on abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So ironic that Alito goes on and on about there being no deeply rooted right to abortion historically while ignoring the almost 50 years during which that right has been embedded in this country prior to his ruling.

It's like Thomas' gun ruling yesterday going on and on about "historical" gun restrictions when the NY law they struck down was over 100 years old.

The so-called originalists/textualists are frauds - they pick and choose whatever supports their desired result.

[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

Why should a basic human right to bodily autonomy be up to individual states? Do you also think that enslavement should be back with the voters? Do you think voters have the right to demand harvesting of organs from dead people? Do you think voters have the right to vote for mandatory vasectomies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alito’s reasoning is atrocious and incorrect—abortion had been around for eons.

And also restrictions on abortion.

Not as long as abortions have been around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So ironic that Alito goes on and on about there being no deeply rooted right to abortion historically while ignoring the almost 50 years during which that right has been embedded in this country prior to his ruling.

It's like Thomas' gun ruling yesterday going on and on about "historical" gun restrictions when the NY law they struck down was over 100 years old.

The so-called originalists/textualists are frauds - they pick and choose whatever supports their desired result.

Well said. These activist judges already know how they're going to rule before the case is even heard. Their opinions are merely post hoc justifications.

[Anonymous]

Forced birth in a country with:

—No universal healthcare
—No universal childcare
—No paid family & medical leave
—One of the highest rates of maternal mortality among rich nations

This isn't about "life." It's about control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m generally pro-choice, but always felt that Roe was bad law, ever since we studied the decision in law school.

Not sure how to feel about today.

So does ever constitutional lawyer and scholar. It was a bad decision.

I always got the sense that a lot of people, especially liberal legal scholars, liked Roe for its results, but knew that it was a decision based on weak legal grounds.

A bad legal decision is still bad, even if you’re happy with its results.

Then why did so many of those sitting justices have to lie about believing it was established precedence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Forced birth in a country with:

—No universal healthcare
—No universal childcare
—No paid family & medical leave
—One of the highest rates of maternal mortality among rich nations

This isn't about "life." It's about control.

Sing it one more time: 🎶 The GOP hates women 🎶

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict very soon most college educated, professional women won’t even consider taking jobs in places like Texas and Florida. This will lead to a serious brain drain in red states.

There are plenty of college educated professional women who are pro choice and will be happy to take those jobs. They’ll also be taxed less for every dollar they earn.

U mad bro?

I know so so so many highly educated pro-life women.

Until they have an unplanned pregnancy.

Pro life and highly educated here. I had two unplanned pregnancies. Two sons, both are now adults, and their leftist father and family tried to get me to abort.

[Anonymous]

Does it mean that women of all ages in red states will be forced to deliver babies when conceive by rape?

[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.

And not even really a Catholic belief. When my grandmother had a miscarriage in 1931, did anyone act like it was a death of a child? No. When my mom had one in 1966, did anyone? No. It's only very recently that Catholics have gone in for those "angel in heaven" and prayer services for miscarried fetuses. All that stuff came *after* the massive anti-abortion movement, which was thoroughly astrotufed by Republicans who needed a rallying cry post-Nixon to rebuild the party.

You are wrong. Their catechism holds that abortion is a grave sin and murder. It’s not a fringe belief. Don’t let them off the hook for using their religion to endanger the lives of women, people who they believe are less equal than men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One option might be to boycott colleges and universities in red states, since female students lives are at risk by attending the Vanderbilts and Emorys, etc. Moreover, call for conferences, sports leagues, etc. to be defunded in these states. Make it easier for women to gain in-state residency kind of like asylum when they flee these states. Academic boycotts of red state politician, etc.

That's not a real option. It's about as real as saying one option is for liberals to start moving en masse to red states to change the vote there. In fact, that is probably more realistic. The notion that getting a small group of elite students to boycott a handful of schools will change anything is delusional. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Here’s the thing: southern schools have become very popular in recent years. Droves of kids from the east coast are flocking down to southern schools.

I think it’s because even liberals are more moderate than you realize.

There’s a backlash, and we Dems need to recognize it and take action.

Every single person I know who has sent a kid to the south for college is not doing it because they're moderate. They sent kids there because admissions is competitive and/or they wanted that particular school. Honestly, they will be voting for Dems there, so good!