“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's time for a federal law protecting women's rights, not a Supreme Court decision. Roe was poorly written and poorly reasoned.

I don't mind constitutional Supreme Court justices. I'm pro-choice. I'm pro a real change that really protects women and a court decision isn't it. We need a federal law.

I say, yes, get rid of Roe v Wade and Gert something real on the books.

Do you know how we do foreign aid? Every 4 or 8 years, we provide foreign aid that includes funding for abortion or foreign aid that does not include funding for abortion. Depending upon who is president.

A federal law protecting women's rights would change every few years depending upon who is in Congress. That's not a solution at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

..we don't care about the leak. We care about the opinion.

You mean a draft opinion that is part of a lengthy deliberatively process within the Court before a final opinion is ultimately voted on and released? You mean that draft opinion?

Yes. That opinion. (Why do you think your overstatement is helpful? Who do you think it is helpful for?)

For emotionally-charged people like you who are inappropriately drawing sweeping conclusions without proper context or the facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

..we don't care about the leak. We care about the opinion.

Millions DO care about the leak.
The leaker must be identified, disbarred and named.

Many millions more care about the opinion. The opinion must be reacted to and the rights it is stripping away must be battled for anew.

You do understand that if this decision is what is ultimately advanced, it does not outlaw abortion, right?
It simply returns the decision to the states.
Perhaps our laws will become more in line with the majority of advanced countries around the globe.... placing limits on when a woman can get an abortion.

Sit TF down. Trigger laws will immediately outlaw it 13 states. Not “limits” but bans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

..we don't care about the leak. We care about the opinion.

Millions DO care about the leak.
The leaker must be identified, disbarred and named.

Many millions more care about the opinion. The opinion must be reacted to and the rights it is stripping away must be battled for anew.

You do understand that if this decision is what is ultimately advanced, it does not outlaw abortion, right?
It simply returns the decision to the states.
Perhaps our laws will become more in line with the majority of advanced countries around the globe.... placing limits on when a woman can get an abortion.

We already have limits at the federal level - viability of the fetus, which is around 20-24 weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

..we don't care about the leak. We care about the opinion.

Millions DO care about the leak.
The leaker must be identified, disbarred and named.

Many millions more care about the opinion. The opinion must be reacted to and the rights it is stripping away must be battled for anew.

You do understand that if this decision is what is ultimately advanced, it does not outlaw abortion, right?
It simply returns the decision to the states.
Perhaps our laws will become more in line with the majority of advanced countries around the globe.... placing limits on when a woman can get an abortion.

Oh I understand that. My kids don't have the same fundamental rights as those kids in that other state. I understand that perfectly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a lengthy opinion when all they have to say is “because the Catholic Church is against abortion.”

[phone]

And more appalling that these were judges appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote.

We are no longer a functional representative democracy.

We were never a functional representative democracy. Since the founding of this country, we've been ruled by a wealthy minority -- a minority that tells us to what to think, what to say, what to do, what to eat, where to work, etc.

That happens by consent. When the consent is no longer there, then things change. This country has changed a lot since its founding. Those of us who didn't sleep through school, or through any stories from family members or friends, know this.

+1
What people understand and were willing to believe has changed a lot.

So far one thing I know to be true, the GOP doesn’t care about America or the women who live here. If they did:

I don’t think they will change the filibuster but maybe Collins, Murkowski, and the Ds can whip up 60 votes to protect women?

Susan "but he promised me he'd uphold Roe" Collins???? LOLOLOL.

Time for her and others to step up to protect women.

The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed early in pregnancy. Why not pass a bill preserving access to abortions before 16 weeks (that is almost all of them).

Because it doesn’t solve the fact that this strikes at the rights of women to control their own bodies and lives, for one thing, and for another thing it doesn’t address the fact that many fetal anomalies are revealed at the 20 week scan and sometimes later, and sometimes women medically need to abort later for their own health. Abortion should be regulated like any other medical procedure, end of list. Which means that it would be available same day at your gyno’s office and covered by insurance instead of inter-state travel and a waiting period song and dance and paying out of pocket.

Because it’s not about the abortion itself, which, again, abortions will become more common if abortion is outlawed. It’s about controlling women and causing them maximum pain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's time for a federal law protecting women's rights, not a Supreme Court decision. Roe was poorly written and poorly reasoned.

I don't mind constitutional Supreme Court justices. I'm pro-choice. I'm pro a real change that really protects women and a court decision isn't it. We need a federal law.

I say, yes, get rid of Roe v Wade and Gert something real on the books.

Getting rid of Roe before you have a congress that will vote something like that into law is going to harm women.

And if it's just a federal law then it will change the next time a GOP congress comes in. They will repeal it. So we'll have back and forth, back and forth, just like with the money that is given and then taken away to foreign aid organizations that hand out info about or help poor women get abortions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And no way to leave a comment online or on the phone to that scuzz bucket Roberts. No one gives a hoot about the leak, you moron. You’re presiding over an illegitimate joke of a court.

You are so, so wrong.

Oh, I’m sorry. RWNJs who didn’t care about any of the horrific things Trump did - like put on two justices when he lost the vote and convince a third judge to retire so he could fill a third seat - are currently pretending this is bad.

No one decent cares about the leak. There. Fixed for clarity!

You know what I find totally disgusting?
When you are dissatisfied with a decision of the court, you immediately begin to impugn the integrity of any Justice who does not vote the way you want.
Sorry, Skippy. All of the Justices on the court were legitimately nominated and voted into power.

And, if you want to talk about a Justice being "convinced" to retire.... shall we talk about Justice Breyer?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/29/inside-campaign-pressure-justice-stephen-breyer-retire/

You are a real POS to try to defend McConnell et al.

I wear that label as a badge of honor coming from someone whom I most certainly disagree with.
It is a shame you resort to name calling instead of arguing your position. It is what I have come to expect here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

..we don't care about the leak. We care about the opinion.

Millions DO care about the leak.
The leaker must be identified, disbarred and named.

Many millions more care about the opinion. The opinion must be reacted to and the rights it is stripping away must be battled for anew.

You do understand that if this decision is what is ultimately advanced, it does not outlaw abortion, right?
It simply returns the decision to the states.
Perhaps our laws will become more in line with the majority of advanced countries around the globe.... placing limits on when a woman can get an abortion.

Sit TF down. Trigger laws will immediately outlaw it 13 states. Not “limits” but bans.

+1
Can these dolt Pollyannas who don’t pay attention please shut up already?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion: most voters won’t care.

What planet are you on?

The planet that elected Trump and all that he begot.

Exactly! Sorry guys, I’m a liberal dem. Used to be deeply involved in abortion rights. But I’m just sick of it. Y’all didn’t make it happen for Hillary. So this is what happens. Wake the F up. Even if you did vote for Hillary…if you’re white…I Fing guarantee you that you have family that voted for Trump. Get your house in order or STFU.

Yeah this is kind of where I’m at too.

YUP. All these idiots who still associate with Trumpers. If you didn’t cut dear old dad out of your life in 2016, I hope they come after your IVF stat.

Troll

Not all the embryos make it. This is on the chopping block.

+1

Yes, there are trigger laws for IVF too.

So much ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

..we don't care about the leak. We care about the opinion.

Millions DO care about the leak.
The leaker must be identified, disbarred and named.

Many millions more care about the opinion. The opinion must be reacted to and the rights it is stripping away must be battled for anew.

You do understand that if this decision is what is ultimately advanced, it does not outlaw abortion, right?
It simply returns the decision to the states.
Perhaps our laws will become more in line with the majority of advanced countries around the globe.... placing limits on when a woman can get an abortion.

And what will happen in states like say, Michigan? Go on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

..we don't care about the leak. We care about the opinion.

You mean a draft opinion that is part of a lengthy deliberatively process within the Court before a final opinion is ultimately voted on and released? You mean that draft opinion?

Yes, that draft. The whole point of which was to get us talking about who leaked it, instead of what it actually says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And no way to leave a comment online or on the phone to that scuzz bucket Roberts. No one gives a hoot about the leak, you moron. You’re presiding over an illegitimate joke of a court.

You are so, so wrong.

Oh, I’m sorry. RWNJs who didn’t care about any of the horrific things Trump did - like put on two justices when he lost the vote and convince a third judge to retire so he could fill a third seat - are currently pretending this is bad.

No one decent cares about the leak. There. Fixed for clarity!

You know what I find totally disgusting?
When you are dissatisfied with a decision of the court, you immediately begin to impugn the integrity of any Justice who does not vote the way you want.
Sorry, Skippy. All of the Justices on the court were legitimately nominated and voted into power.

And, if you want to talk about a Justice being "convinced" to retire.... shall we talk about Justice Breyer?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/29/inside-campaign-pressure-justice-stephen-breyer-retire/

You don't find it concerning that 3 justices swore under oath during their confirmation hearings that Roe v Wade was settled precedence and have now flipped?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

..we don't care about the leak. We care about the opinion.

You mean a draft opinion that is part of a lengthy deliberatively process within the Court before a final opinion is ultimately voted on and released? You mean that draft opinion?

Yes. That opinion. (Why do you think your overstatement is helpful? Who do you think it is helpful for?)

For emotionally-charged people like you who are inappropriately drawing sweeping conclusions without proper context or the facts.

We care very much about this draft opinion and not about the leaker. Deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pack the court already. JFC

With the two Republicans pretending to be Democrats Sinema and Manchin, how would you suggest doing this, precisely? With the entire goddan GOP off their effing rockers and unwilling to govern, how do you see this working out?

Oh? You think Congress won't change after this?

No, I don't think Congress will change. Maybe a few seats will be impacted, but nothing on a grand scale. DCUM posters think everyone in the country is thinking like them. That is not the case.

I think you’re in a right wing bubble if you don’t get how many women across America rightly understand this sht opinion to mean that the GOP wants their theocracy at the expense of women.

70% of women on average favor not overturning Roe. 30% of women favor overturning Roe. That's a definitive majority, but not a majority I'm convinced that can impact elections en masse, especially since anti-choice advocates are more politically active than pro-choice advocates.

Up until the last year or two (and elections haven't happened yet after the Texas law was uphold by SCOTUS), there wasn't much reason for pro-choice advocates to be politically active.

Now there is.

This line of thinking is how we got here. The Supreme Court was the ENTIRE PURPOSE of Donald Trump.

Yup. That’s why the religious extremists held their nose to support him.

Yep. Which is why I have ZERO respects for the Catholics that supported him. (Which is all my family and many friends. I grew up in what is essentially a Catholic enclave.) In fact, they disgust me b/c of it.