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:Finally, after the suctioning of 63 million growing babies

STFU you total POS!!

those were fetuses, not "babies"

grow a brain and learn the difference

I've been pregnant 3 times. Not once did any of my doctors (male or female) refer to my pregnancy with the word fetus.

Mine did.

But sounds like your pregnancies were wanted. Sounds like you were willing to gestate them to term, to go through labor and delivery, to have your body changed, to accept the danger of pregnancy and birthing, and to take on the responsibility of raising children. Not all women accept those things, and no government should be able to force them to.

Those doctors did nit know what I was thinking or planning to do when they first saw me.

Noticed that you didn't address the question of other women not accepting the choice you made to undergo a potentially life-threatening process.

No, because that's not what I was addressing. I'll say it again, no doctor, female or male, ever referred to my "fetus."

So? Why should we care?

Women who want their pregnancies should have access to the medical treatments that will allow them to sustain them and give birth to a healthy baby.

Women who DO NOT want their pregnancies should have access to the medical treatments that allow them to terminate the pregnancy and have a full and healthy recovery.

Women who want their pregnancies, but come to find that their pregnancies will result in a child that is not viable outside of the womb OR that the pregnancy may jeopardize their life should have access to the medical treatments that allow th to terminate the pregnancy and have a full and healthy recovery.

PERIOD.

So sick of "prolifers" putting the "rights" of a pregnancy above those of a fully formed, independent adult woman.

You should care because describing a growing baby as "just a fetus" is not accurate. Of course, that's not saying you can't maintain your pro abortion stance anyway

A growing baby is a one or two week old or three or four month old. A baby in utero is a growing fetus and I am sorry these facts and accurate terms mess up your sloppy attempts at equivocation.

I understand that your description makes the procedure much more palatable; however "growing fetus" is not what most people say when pregnant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. This will mobilize the masses.

Which will do what?

Republicans will lose control of local and state offices. They are done.

Only if people get out and vote!

Unfortunately, the US has a TERRIBLE voting record. People are apathetic and don't bother to vote. I just heard a poll that only 30% of people ages 18-30 even plan to vote in the mid-terms. We only get about 50% of the population to vote in the presidential elections. We HAVE to impress upon people - especially young people who will be affected and believed this would never happen - to get out and vote!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally, after the suctioning of 63 million growing babies

STFU you total POS!!

those were fetuses, not "babies"

grow a brain and learn the difference

I've been pregnant 3 times. Not once did any of my doctors (male or female) refer to my pregnancy with the word fetus.

Mine did.

But sounds like your pregnancies were wanted. Sounds like you were willing to gestate them to term, to go through labor and delivery, to have your body changed, to accept the danger of pregnancy and birthing, and to take on the responsibility of raising children. Not all women accept those things, and no government should be able to force them to.

Those doctors did nit know what I was thinking or planning to do when they first saw me.

Noticed that you didn't address the question of other women not accepting the choice you made to undergo a potentially life-threatening process.

No, because that's not what I was addressing. I'll say it again, no doctor, female or male, ever referred to my "fetus."

So? Why should we care?

Women who want their pregnancies should have access to the medical treatments that will allow them to sustain them and give birth to a healthy baby.

Women who DO NOT want their pregnancies should have access to the medical treatments that allow them to terminate the pregnancy and have a full and healthy recovery.

Women who want their pregnancies, but come to find that their pregnancies will result in a child that is not viable outside of the womb OR that the pregnancy may jeopardize their life should have access to the medical treatments that allow th to terminate the pregnancy and have a full and healthy recovery.

PERIOD.

So sick of "prolifers" putting the "rights" of a pregnancy above those of a fully formed, independent adult woman.

You should care because describing a growing baby as "just a fetus" is not accurate. Of course, that's not saying you can't maintain your pro abortion stance anyway

What kind of stupid twat thinks medically accurate terminology is “not accurate”?

"Just a fetus" is not what the medical community says.

[Anonymous]

Thank god for California (and New York, which is doing the same).

[Anonymous]

This will have consequences. I already told my twin daughters not to apply to any colleges in those anti-abortion states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally, after the suctioning of 63 million growing babies

STFU you total POS!!

those were fetuses, not "babies"

grow a brain and learn the difference

I've been pregnant 3 times. Not once did any of my doctors (male or female) refer to my pregnancy with the word fetus.

Mine did.

But sounds like your pregnancies were wanted. Sounds like you were willing to gestate them to term, to go through labor and delivery, to have your body changed, to accept the danger of pregnancy and birthing, and to take on the responsibility of raising children. Not all women accept those things, and no government should be able to force them to.

Those doctors did nit know what I was thinking or planning to do when they first saw me.

Noticed that you didn't address the question of other women not accepting the choice you made to undergo a potentially life-threatening process.

No, because that's not what I was addressing. I'll say it again, no doctor, female or male, ever referred to my "fetus."

So? Why should we care?

Women who want their pregnancies should have access to the medical treatments that will allow them to sustain them and give birth to a healthy baby.

Women who DO NOT want their pregnancies should have access to the medical treatments that allow them to terminate the pregnancy and have a full and healthy recovery.

Women who want their pregnancies, but come to find that their pregnancies will result in a child that is not viable outside of the womb OR that the pregnancy may jeopardize their life should have access to the medical treatments that allow th to terminate the pregnancy and have a full and healthy recovery.

PERIOD.

So sick of "prolifers" putting the "rights" of a pregnancy above those of a fully formed, independent adult woman.

You should care because describing a growing baby as "just a fetus" is not accurate. Of course, that's not saying you can't maintain your pro abortion stance anyway

What kind of stupid twat thinks medically accurate terminology is “not accurate”?

"Just a fetus" is not what the medical community says.

“Fetus” is a medically accurate term.

[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:

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.

Half of Catholics supported Roe in 1973 and half of them support it today.

Roe was good law. It recognized a fundamental liberty while allowing the state to intervene in some limited cases. The controversy was never about the rights at stake it was always about the limits. Now states have a blank check. It’s utter insanity. The posters crowing about Roe being bad law lack any understanding of the law.

But you see, regressive voters have always hated that women don’t have to get married any more. They hate that they can’t demand sex of their wives. They hate that women can have bank accounts and they hate that women out perform them at work. They hate feminism and want women barefoot and pregnant. This is about punishing women for being women.

No. No constitutional scholar worth her or his salt thought Roe was well done.
Also, I’ve been in prolife groups all my life. They are dominated by…. WOMEN. If you want unfettered access to abortion, it’s the women you have to fight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank god for California (and New York, which is doing the same).

MA with a Republican Governor did the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This will have consequences. I already told my twin daughters not to apply to any colleges in those anti-abortion states.

Tell them to take Yale/Harvard out of their list too. My alma matter(Harvard) contributed to the training of many of these jurists

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Younger generations have been more pro-life than their parents. The politics of this may not play out as intended.

On the other hand, this will lead to the birth of more babies that will grow up to vote for Democrats.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am so grateful to live in California.

Glad you're happy now, but if Republicans win in November they are talking about a nation-wide ban[u]. It won't matter what state you live in. We will all be living in dystopia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Susan Collins is very disappointed

She can't really be serious here. She CANNOT be serious.

We'll, she's right.

Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are both smart men. They didn't get confused. Did they misspeak? Did they lie? Do they lack integrity?

[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:

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.

Half of Catholics supported Roe in 1973 and half of them support it today.

Roe was good law. It recognized a fundamental liberty while allowing the state to intervene in some limited cases. The controversy was never about the rights at stake it was always about the limits. Now states have a blank check. It’s utter insanity. The posters crowing about Roe being bad law lack any understanding of the law.

But you see, regressive voters have always hated that women don’t have to get married any more. They hate that they can’t demand sex of their wives. They hate that women can have bank accounts and they hate that women out perform them at work. They hate feminism and want women barefoot and pregnant. This is about punishing women for being women.

No. No constitutional scholar worth her or his salt thought Roe was well done.
Also, I’ve been in prolife groups all my life. They are dominated by…. WOMEN. If you want unfettered access to abortion, it’s the women you have to fight.

All six regressive dill holes swore it was precedent they would abide by.

And you and the rest of the forced birth women have been internalizing misogyny since childhood. Of course you’re forced birthers.

[Anonymous]

Trump is like a cancer.

He has unleashed more damage than one could have thought possible (from COVID deaths to this). Really, I understand that the pro-lifers and GOP stood willing to get into bed with anyone for this outcome...but it is ALL part of his legacy. Good GOD, that man will be reviled through the ages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am so grateful to live in California.

Lucky you.

Unlucky those poor women who live in Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, etc. who have an unwanted pregnancy.