Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow it's almost like letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Who could have foreseen such a obvious turn of events aside from anyone with any hint of pattern recognition whatsoever.

If decide to let judges legislate from the bench, they will inevitably do so in a way that you don't agree with.

Roe didn’t legislate any rights away. Nice try.

Did you even read what you quoted? Here, let me bold the relevant section for you.

letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Yes I did. And I don’t believe Roe created any law. It preserved the rights of women to access healthcare with limitations pursuant to the interest of the state. In my opinion, the state interest cited in Roe was BS. But they didn’t legislate from the bench.

There was no 'right' to abortion before the justices created it. Yes, they were legislating from the bench. Yes, they're doing it again right now.

You're upset because they're legislating from the bench in a way you don't agree with, but you shouldn't hide behind that emotion with lies.

There was no right for black kids to go to public schools with white kids before the justices created it.
There was no right for black people to marry white people before the justices created it.
There was no right for people to use birth control before the justices created it.
There was no right for parents to send their kids to private schools before the justices created it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazon’s offering up to $4k in travel expenses to help women cover the expense of having to go to a different state for medical care.

It's fine because very few professional people have abortions as they use bc

Newsflash: The majority of Amazon's 1M+ employees are not "professionals".

Also dogwhistle. Many professional people have abortions. How ridiculous.

Many married women have abortions, too, and the pregnancies were not a result of affairs or rapes, but just oops babies, and they cannot afford to take care of another child.

That was my mom, at the age of 46, dad was 55. This was going to be a high risk pregnancy to begin with. So, they terminated the pregnancy.

Yep. This is a sleeping giant. More families need to be open about this.

Aren’t the sw D& Cs before week 15 and certainly before weeks 22+

The terms are what are being debated not overarching abortions or not

Here, in 2022, we are debating abortion, not terms. Multiple states have/are banning abortion entirely. Not abortions after 22 weeks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I miss the part in the Constitution. That's his life begins a conception and someone point me to the passage.
Because for all the rights it gives people and never once talks about the unborn.

The Constitution grants no rights. It restricts the government from impinging on them

Basic stuff that people do not get. And yet, the unborn apparently have rights the state must protect, that trump the rights of living women. Surreal.

But that's it exactly. People are saying that they will make no exceptions even to save the life of the mother. How the f--- is that "pro" life?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I miss the part in the Constitution. That's his life begins a conception and someone point me to the passage.
Because for all the rights it gives people and never once talks about the unborn.

The Constitution grants no rights. It restricts the government from impinging on them

Basic stuff that people do not get. And yet, the unborn apparently have rights the state must protect, that trump the rights of living women. Surreal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I miss the part in the Constitution. That's his life begins a conception and someone point me to the passage.
Because for all the rights it gives people and never once talks about the unborn.

The Constitution grants no rights. It restricts the government from impinging on them

Basic stuff that people do not get. And yet, the unborn apparently have rights the state must protect, that trump the rights of living women. Surreal.

Wait until you ever see a divorce court where a parent right trumps the child’s

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazon’s offering up to $4k in travel expenses to help women cover the expense of having to go to a different state for medical care.

It's fine because very few professional people have abortions as they use bc

Newsflash: The majority of Amazon's 1M+ employees are not "professionals".

Also dogwhistle. Many professional people have abortions. How ridiculous.

Many married women have abortions, too, and the pregnancies were not a result of affairs or rapes, but just oops babies, and they cannot afford to take care of another child.

That was my mom, at the age of 46, dad was 55. This was going to be a high risk pregnancy to begin with. So, they terminated the pregnancy.

Yep. This is a sleeping giant. More families need to be open about this.

Aren’t the sw D& Cs before week 15 and certainly before weeks 22+

The terms are what are being debated not overarching abortions or not

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who leaked it? A clerk? From which Justice?

Does it even matter?!!! No. The leak isn’t the story. But if I head to bet, it wouldn’t be a liberal clerk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I miss the part in the Constitution. That's his life begins a conception and someone point me to the passage.
Because for all the rights it gives people and never once talks about the unborn.

The Constitution grants no rights. It restricts the government from impinging on them

Basic stuff that people do not get. And yet, the unborn apparently have rights the state must protect, that trump the rights of living women. Surreal.

Anonymous wrote:Who leaked it? A clerk? From which Justice?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazon’s offering up to $4k in travel expenses to help women cover the expense of having to go to a different state for medical care.

It's fine because very few professional people have abortions as they use bc

Newsflash: The majority of Amazon's 1M+ employees are not "professionals".

Also dogwhistle. Many professional people have abortions. How ridiculous.

Many married women have abortions, too, and the pregnancies were not a result of affairs or rapes, but just oops babies, and they cannot afford to take care of another child.

That was my mom, at the age of 46, dad was 55. This was going to be a high risk pregnancy to begin with. So, they terminated the pregnancy.

Yep. This is a sleeping giant. More families need to be open about this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazon’s offering up to $4k in travel expenses to help women cover the expense of having to go to a different state for medical care.

It's fine because very few professional people have abortions as they use bc

You are kidding right because I have quite a few friends who had had "oops babies" in their late 30's early 40s. all "professional" women.

Last gyn apt, my doc asked me what bcp I was using. She casually mentioned that women in their 40s follow closely behind teenagers in her practice as far as unwanted pregnancies go.

+1 I had my tubes removed. The recovery was not bad and the peace of mind is priceless. Wish I’d done it sooner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I miss the part in the Constitution. That's his life begins a conception and someone point me to the passage.
Because for all the rights it gives people and never once talks about the unborn.

The Constitution grants no rights. It restricts the government from impinging on them

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SCOTUS leaked ruling simply says let the state legislators decide the issue of abortion. This is actually the correct position. Keep the feds out of it and let the people thru their elected officials decide. The blue states will keep abortions legal and the reds will limit it to 15 weeks or so.

The hysteria over this is … well … hysterical.

agreed, not that big of a deal.

I’m concerned states will restrict a woman’s ability to cross state lines.

Why?

Not PP but maybe because Missouri already passed a law barring leaving the state to get an abortion?

Not to mention, travel is not protected under the constitution, so it would be upheld by the same supremes.

That's not true. The Commerce clause essentially states that if citizens are trying to use businesses and services in another state, that a state cannot impede them from crossing state lines to use those services. Only the federal government can put restrictions on interstate commerce. A woman who is paying for services in another state cannot be barred from traveling to that state to use those services. A state that does this is violating the Commerce clause of the US Constitution.

The text of the commerce clause doesn't say anything remotely like that. There is a doctrine called the negative commerce clause that says something like that, but it's not anywhere in the actual text.

Perhaps not, but as long as this decision doesn't completely throw out stare decesis then it should cover it. Look here at the discussion about commerce and interstate regulation that Chief Justice Marshall used in Gibbons v. Ogden to see where there is precedence to suggest that the states do not have the power to restrict a person traveling interstate for commercial reasons.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C3-1-2/ALDE_00001058/

There was a long period in the Court's history when a majority of the Justices, seeking to curb the regulatory powers of the Federal Government by various means, held that certain things were not encompassed by the Commerce Clause because they were neither interstate commerce nor bore a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce. Thus, at one time, the Court held that mining or manufacturing, even when the product would move in interstate commerce, was not reachable under the Commerce Clause;11 it held insurance transactions carried on across state lines not to be commerce,12 and that exhibitions of baseball between professional teams that travel from state to state were not in commerce.13 Similarly, it held that the Commerce Clause was not applicable to the making of contracts for the insertion of advertisements in periodicals in another state14 or to the making of contracts for personal services to be rendered in another state.15

Later decisions either have overturned or have undermined all of these holdings. The gathering of news by a press association and its transmission to client newspapers are interstate commerce.16 The activities of Group Health Association, Inc., which serves only its own members, are trade and capable of becoming interstate commerce;17 the business of insurance when transacted between an insurer and an insured in different states is interstate commerce.18 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to,19 the rationales by which manufacturing,20 mining,21 business transactions,22 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power.

Among the Several States
Continuing in Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice Marshall observed that the phrase among the several States was not one which would probably have been selected to indicate the completely interior traffic of a state. It must therefore have been selected to exclude the exclusively internal commerce of a state. Although, of course, the phrase may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more states than one, it is obvious that [c]ommerce among the states, cannot stop at the external boundary line of each state, but may be introduced into the interior. The Chief Justice then succinctly stated the rule, which, though restricted in some periods, continues to govern the interpretation of the clause. The genius and character of the whole government seem to be, that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the states generally; but not to those which are completely within a particular state, which do not affect other states, and with which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government.23

So, there is argument that Chief Justice Marshall's ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden should cover this situation, where women are traveling to another state for commerce purchases, e.g. using a service provided by a business in another state. Now, there may be a conflict for PP if they need to start charging for the services to qualify as commerce but then they lose their 501(c)3 status because they are charging for such services. But any clinic that charges for their services and does not get money from the federal government for that purpose should qualify as interstate commerce and be protected from restrictive state laws.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a feeling republicans are just going to f@#$ around and find out on this one.

Just wait till all those unwanted babies and rape babies and incest babies and disabled babies and babies with almost no prenatal care turn 18. Either massive crime wave, political revolution or both.

Do you think they care? (Hint: they do not).

No. Because most of them will die of old age before this happens.

Conservatives don't care what happens to anyone else, event their own mothers and sisters, and it's obvious.

I made a vow to myself that I would out the 4 conservative / republican women I know who had abortions if Roe V. Wade was overturned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazon’s offering up to $4k in travel expenses to help women cover the expense of having to go to a different state for medical care.

It's fine because very few professional people have abortions as they use bc

You are kidding right because I have quite a few friends who had had "oops babies" in their late 30's early 40s. all "professional" women.

Last gyn apt, my doc asked me what bcp I was using. She casually mentioned that women in their 40s follow closely behind teenagers in her practice as far as unwanted pregnancies go.