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.

^^^This. It's all manufactured.

Way more embryos are miscarried than ever get gestated and born. If embryos and fetuses were sacred human life created by a supreme being, then that supreme being sure is a sick monster. And don't come back with the "god has a plan" nonsense. It makes absolutely no sense to create billions of embryos and fetuses, say they have souls and call them sacred life, and then have them wash down the toilet from natural circumstances, often before a woman even knows there was a conception. You anti-abortionists have no rejoinder to this philosophical conundrum, which is why you always conveniently ignore it.

I have an issue with abortion not from a philosophical perspective but because the fetus can feel pain during the procedure.

No, it can’t. Where do you get this crap from?

Yes, it can. I’m a neuroscientist. The first system to develop is the nervous system. Before the heart. It feels the pain.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time for 24-7, indefinite, loud protests at the justice's houses. People following them everywhere in public wearing handmaid tale outfits. Public shunning. Not allowed to go anywhere in public in peace.

And then you have the audacity to call them cowards. You think they didn’t know what they were doing? They’d do it again even with your public shaming because it was the RIGHT thing to do.

If they think it was the right thing to do, then they shouldn't mind being dogged in public for the rest of their lives. And their spouses, too. 24/7, indefinitely.

They won’t. It’s still a vile thing to propose.

No it isn’t? Yea, Americans have a right to protest. Why should a group not camp out 24/7 outside their homes to loudly protest losing rights? Why should they not be heckled as they walk through an airport? They’ll live.

don't act like Republicans. We're Democrats. Act decently.

That literally has gotten us nowhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's about power. The power to control. It's an attack on individualism. The decision takes power from individual people and gives it to legislatures. It's an attack on the fundamental idea of America. The underlying change is to the meaning of the word people which now exclusively means people's representatives. It's an attack on limited government.

The fundamental idea of America is not individuals with unlimited rights - it's a social contract where individuals balance their rights with those of others through an elected government.

The fundamental idea is that power rests inherently with the people not the government. The people grant government limited powers. Not governments granting people limited rights.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's about power. The power to control. It's an attack on individualism. The decision takes power from individual people and gives it to legislatures. It's an attack on the fundamental idea of America. The underlying change is to the meaning of the word people which now exclusively means people's representatives. It's an attack on limited government.

The fundamental idea of America is not individuals with unlimited rights - it's a social contract where individuals balance their rights with those of others through an elected government.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Hmmm. It used to be that husbands were held not to be capable of rape. If they insisted on sex, and wives didn't yield willingly, no harm or foul -- there was no such thing as "marital rape."

Is she specifically saying women can say no this time? Or is this one of those "if you don't want to get pregnant, you can control the intake of sperm by swallowing or backdoor access?

How vulgar is this going, actually?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you believe the government gets to control what a woman does with her body you are NOT a small government person and we will call you out every time you complain about government regulation.

Hypocrites.

You are so ignorant.

DP. C'mon. Show us the contortions you get into to define this as small government. It will be entertaining.

Clearly you don't understand the decision, nor the concept of small government. You are also ignorant. It's not my job to help you learn. I am merely taking some pleasure pointing out your ignorance.

Clearly you think the concept of small government means when things you approve of are not regulated, while things you don't approve of are.

Not at all. First it means the federal government has limited powers, which this decision aligns with. Second it means that laws are enacted by elected representatives, which this decision also aligns with. The people can vote and elect whatever representative to implement whatever implantation they want. It matters none whether I agree or not.

Except it does not do that. It vastly expands the power of both the federal and state governments. Rights are the only things that limit government power. By eliminating a right the decision grants more power to the government because now the government can act, either way, whereas before it could not either way. At The decision gives unlimited powers to the govenment on everything except guns, speech and religion.

Seriously? There were no state laws regulating abortion before today?

Anonymous wrote:It's about power. The power to control. It's an attack on individualism. The decision takes power from individual people and gives it to legislatures. It's an attack on the fundamental idea of America. The underlying change is to the meaning of the word people which now exclusively means people's representatives. It's an attack on limited government.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What affect do the laws being crafted and enacted now have on where you live in the future? I could not live in Texas or Florida at this time, and even though I'm established in my state I would be open to moving to states next door if my state became a Texas or Florida. At the same time, I think I would first get a lot more involved in politics to change my state before leaving it. My Congresspeople are already voting as I'd like them to on the majority of issues now, so I vote and write letters but nothing else. If I were stuck in a deep Red state, though, I would be deeply unhappy these days. I feel they are being given permission to push the envelope ever farther on so many issues - guns, women's rights, LGBTQ+, division of church and state - and I am scared of how far they'll go.

The thing is that is where we need more Democrats to move

I'd rather secede. Let's divide up the nation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Hmmm. It used to be that husbands were held not to be capable of rape. If they insisted on sex, and wives didn't yield willingly, no harm or foul -- there was no such thing as "marital rape."

Is she specifically saying women can say no this time? Or is this one of those "if you don't want to get pregnant, you can control the intake of sperm by swallowing or backdoor access?"

How vulgar is this going, actually?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you believe the government gets to control what a woman does with her body you are NOT a small government person and we will call you out every time you complain about government regulation.

Hypocrites.

You are so ignorant.

DP. C'mon. Show us the contortions you get into to define this as small government. It will be entertaining.

Clearly you don't understand the decision, nor the concept of small government. You are also ignorant. It's not my job to help you learn. I am merely taking some pleasure pointing out your ignorance.

Clearly you think the concept of small government means when things you approve of are not regulated, while things you don't approve of are.

Not at all. First it means the federal government has limited powers, which this decision aligns with. Second it means that laws are enacted by elected representatives, which this decision also aligns with. The people can vote and elect whatever representative to implement whatever implantation they want. It matters none whether I agree or not.

This is nonsensical. You know it’s wrong, don’t you?