Anonymous
05/16/2022 19:00
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.
You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.
DP here. What kind of insanity is this?!
Women are not getting abortions because they are confused about what a fetus is or view babies as disposable. I'd argue, quite the opposite, they are extremely well-aware of what a big responsibility it is to gestate, deliver, and care for a baby. My goodness...how dumb do you think American women are?
The PP wasn't talking about all women , dumbass. Clearly the proponents of abortion are using a change such as "my body, my choice" which precludes the recognition that there is another body/life involved.
Anonymous
05/16/2022 18:58
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This has NOTHING to do with abortion and 100% to do with the privacy rights that ARE guaranteed by our constitution.
Women want to give birth at home. Homebirths can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women want to have large families. Large families can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women want to then homeschool their children. Homeschooling can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women have PRIVACY rights, the rights to decide when and how they want to have their children and raise their children.
Make no mistake. This is an attack on ALL women -- women who are pro abortion, women who are anti choice. It really makes NO difference. If you are in favor of women having children and having families and raising those families the way that you think that they should be raised, then be VERY scared of this opinion. It is taking away YOUR rights too. It has NOTHING to do with abortion at all. It states specifically that women have NO fundament rights at all unless they are specifically guaranteed by the constitution.
The supreme court needs to be freed from these unevolved old timey dinosaurs.
It’s not that they’re old timey dinosaurs, it’s that they’re fascists.
If by fascists you mean anyone you don't like.
Anonymous
05/16/2022 18:37
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Back in the late 1960s, a friend's mom nearly died from a pennyroyal abortion.
Anonymous
05/16/2022 18:00
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This has NOTHING to do with abortion and 100% to do with the privacy rights that ARE guaranteed by our constitution.
Women want to give birth at home. Homebirths can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women want to have large families. Large families can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women want to then homeschool their children. Homeschooling can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women have PRIVACY rights, the rights to decide when and how they want to have their children and raise their children.
Make no mistake. This is an attack on ALL women -- women who are pro abortion, women who are anti choice. It really makes NO difference. If you are in favor of women having children and having families and raising those families the way that you think that they should be raised, then be VERY scared of this opinion. It is taking away YOUR rights too. It has NOTHING to do with abortion at all. It states specifically that women have NO fundament rights at all unless they are specifically guaranteed by the constitution.
There are no privacy rights in the Constitution. That is the whole issue. They can be added. People should go for it. I even think an act of Congress could preserve abortion rights. But they otherwise do not exist.
Should intentional homebirths be banned -- yes I think they should -- no issue. The other rights are protected by a combination of portions of the Constitution.
That is misreading the Constitution. If something isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, it doesn’t make it wide open to government authority. It is literally the opposite. Personal rights belong to the people unless government has a compelling interest in which case it must balance the rights and the government interest in the least intrusive way.
DP. You’re both overthinking this. This is about fundamental liberty, a right expressly guaranteed in the constitution.
Where is fundamental liberty exist in the Constitution? What section?
The words life, liberty, and property are in the 5th and 14th. You are entitled to due process of law, which means strict scrutiny, if the stage wishes to abridge those rights. Alito thinks he’s clever. No rights, no strict scrutiny. The state can do whatever it wants and get extreme deference. Insane when you’re talking about a medical procedure that saves lives.
Alito is also lying about history.
Anonymous
05/16/2022 17:46
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The whole sacred talk is awash in religion and we are not a theocracy. My religion does not teach that a fertilized egg is sacred, so keep your laws off my body.
You know perfectly well that many abortions occur when the developing child is far more than a fertilized egg. Your terminology makes it easier for women to view babies as disposable and abort them.
DP here. What kind of insanity is this?!
Women are not getting abortions because they are confused about what a fetus is or view babies as disposable. I'd argue, quite the opposite, they are extremely well-aware of what a big responsibility it is to gestate, deliver, and care for a baby. My goodness...how dumb do you think American women are?
Anonymous
05/16/2022 17:20
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This has NOTHING to do with abortion and 100% to do with the privacy rights that ARE guaranteed by our constitution.
Women want to give birth at home. Homebirths can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women want to have large families. Large families can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women want to then homeschool their children. Homeschooling can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women have PRIVACY rights, the rights to decide when and how they want to have their children and raise their children.
Make no mistake. This is an attack on ALL women -- women who are pro abortion, women who are anti choice. It really makes NO difference. If you are in favor of women having children and having families and raising those families the way that you think that they should be raised, then be VERY scared of this opinion. It is taking away YOUR rights too. It has NOTHING to do with abortion at all. It states specifically that women have NO fundament rights at all unless they are specifically guaranteed by the constitution.
There are no privacy rights in the Constitution. That is the whole issue. They can be added. People should go for it. I even think an act of Congress could preserve abortion rights. But they otherwise do not exist.
Should intentional homebirths be banned -- yes I think they should -- no issue. The other rights are protected by a combination of portions of the Constitution.
That is misreading the Constitution. If something isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, it doesn’t make it wide open to government authority. It is literally the opposite. Personal rights belong to the people unless government has a compelling interest in which case it must balance the rights and the government interest in the least intrusive way.
DP. You’re both overthinking this. This is about fundamental liberty, a right expressly guaranteed in the constitution.
Where is fundamental liberty exist in the Constitution? What section?
The words life, liberty, and property are in the 5th and 14th. You are entitled to due process of law, which means strict scrutiny, if the stage wishes to abridge those rights. Alito thinks he’s clever. No rights, no strict scrutiny. The state can do whatever it wants and get extreme deference. Insane when you’re talking about a medical procedure that saves lives.
Anonymous
05/16/2022 17:20
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This has NOTHING to do with abortion and 100% to do with the privacy rights that ARE guaranteed by our constitution.
Women want to give birth at home. Homebirths can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women want to have large families. Large families can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women want to then homeschool their children. Homeschooling can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women have PRIVACY rights, the rights to decide when and how they want to have their children and raise their children.
Make no mistake. This is an attack on ALL women -- women who are pro abortion, women who are anti choice. It really makes NO difference. If you are in favor of women having children and having families and raising those families the way that you think that they should be raised, then be VERY scared of this opinion. It is taking away YOUR rights too. It has NOTHING to do with abortion at all. It states specifically that women have NO fundament rights at all unless they are specifically guaranteed by the constitution.
There are no privacy rights in the Constitution. That is the whole issue. They can be added. People should go for it. I even think an act of Congress could preserve abortion rights. But they otherwise do not exist.
Should intentional homebirths be banned -- yes I think they should -- no issue. The other rights are protected by a combination of portions of the Constitution.
That is misreading the Constitution. If something isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, it doesn’t make it wide open to government authority. It is literally the opposite. Personal rights belong to the people unless government has a compelling interest in which case it must balance the rights and the government interest in the least intrusive way.
No --- it means those rights do not belong to the federal government. The States are still free to make laws.
No. The 14th Amendment fixed that egregious error.
Anonymous
05/16/2022 16:57
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This has NOTHING to do with abortion and 100% to do with the privacy rights that ARE guaranteed by our constitution.
Women want to give birth at home. Homebirths can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women want to have large families. Large families can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women want to then homeschool their children. Homeschooling can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women have PRIVACY rights, the rights to decide when and how they want to have their children and raise their children.
Make no mistake. This is an attack on ALL women -- women who are pro abortion, women who are anti choice. It really makes NO difference. If you are in favor of women having children and having families and raising those families the way that you think that they should be raised, then be VERY scared of this opinion. It is taking away YOUR rights too. It has NOTHING to do with abortion at all. It states specifically that women have NO fundament rights at all unless they are specifically guaranteed by the constitution.
There are no privacy rights in the Constitution. That is the whole issue. They can be added. People should go for it. I even think an act of Congress could preserve abortion rights. But they otherwise do not exist.
Should intentional homebirths be banned -- yes I think they should -- no issue. The other rights are protected by a combination of portions of the Constitution.
That is misreading the Constitution. If something isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, it doesn’t make it wide open to government authority. It is literally the opposite. Personal rights belong to the people unless government has a compelling interest in which case it must balance the rights and the government interest in the least intrusive way.
DP. You’re both overthinking this. This is about fundamental liberty, a right expressly guaranteed in the constitution.
Where is fundamental liberty exist in the Constitution? What section?
Anonymous
05/16/2022 16:57
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This has NOTHING to do with abortion and 100% to do with the privacy rights that ARE guaranteed by our constitution.
Women want to give birth at home. Homebirths can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women want to have large families. Large families can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women want to then homeschool their children. Homeschooling can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women have PRIVACY rights, the rights to decide when and how they want to have their children and raise their children.
Make no mistake. This is an attack on ALL women -- women who are pro abortion, women who are anti choice. It really makes NO difference. If you are in favor of women having children and having families and raising those families the way that you think that they should be raised, then be VERY scared of this opinion. It is taking away YOUR rights too. It has NOTHING to do with abortion at all. It states specifically that women have NO fundament rights at all unless they are specifically guaranteed by the constitution.
There are no privacy rights in the Constitution. That is the whole issue. They can be added. People should go for it. I even think an act of Congress could preserve abortion rights. But they otherwise do not exist.
Should intentional homebirths be banned -- yes I think they should -- no issue. The other rights are protected by a combination of portions of the Constitution.
What???? I hope you are 100% joking. Women have been giving birth at home for thousands and thousands of years. EVERY single president was born at home until Jimmy Carter (and maybe after, too).
Women do NOT need to be subjected to male notions and control on how and when to give birth. That is the next step though and this reasoning is why I am so concerned. Fine, they outlaw abortion. Maybe half the country cares. But next they outlaw homebirth. Then they outlaw homeschooling. Then they outlaw more than one child. Then they outlaw natural birth.
Get OUT Of my life, my family, and my decisions. I can birth on a boat, in a hot tub, or a rug. You do not have the right to tell me how I can push things out of my body. If it was a man needing to take a dump, you wouldn't tell him where and how to do it. I am not under your control.
And, privacy rights do exist in the constitution. That is the basis of the Loving decision.
Anonymous
05/16/2022 16:57
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This has NOTHING to do with abortion and 100% to do with the privacy rights that ARE guaranteed by our constitution.
Women want to give birth at home. Homebirths can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women want to have large families. Large families can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women want to then homeschool their children. Homeschooling can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women have PRIVACY rights, the rights to decide when and how they want to have their children and raise their children.
Make no mistake. This is an attack on ALL women -- women who are pro abortion, women who are anti choice. It really makes NO difference. If you are in favor of women having children and having families and raising those families the way that you think that they should be raised, then be VERY scared of this opinion. It is taking away YOUR rights too. It has NOTHING to do with abortion at all. It states specifically that women have NO fundament rights at all unless they are specifically guaranteed by the constitution.
There are no privacy rights in the Constitution. That is the whole issue. They can be added. People should go for it. I even think an act of Congress could preserve abortion rights. But they otherwise do not exist.
Should intentional homebirths be banned -- yes I think they should -- no issue. The other rights are protected by a combination of portions of the Constitution.
That is misreading the Constitution. If something isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, it doesn’t make it wide open to government authority. It is literally the opposite. Personal rights belong to the people unless government has a compelling interest in which case it must balance the rights and the government interest in the least intrusive way.
No --- it means those rights do not belong to the federal government. The States are still free to make laws.
Anonymous
05/16/2022 16:53
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This has NOTHING to do with abortion and 100% to do with the privacy rights that ARE guaranteed by our constitution.
Women want to give birth at home. Homebirths can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women want to have large families. Large families can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women want to then homeschool their children. Homeschooling can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women have PRIVACY rights, the rights to decide when and how they want to have their children and raise their children.
Make no mistake. This is an attack on ALL women -- women who are pro abortion, women who are anti choice. It really makes NO difference. If you are in favor of women having children and having families and raising those families the way that you think that they should be raised, then be VERY scared of this opinion. It is taking away YOUR rights too. It has NOTHING to do with abortion at all. It states specifically that women have NO fundament rights at all unless they are specifically guaranteed by the constitution.
There are no privacy rights in the Constitution. That is the whole issue. They can be added. People should go for it. I even think an act of Congress could preserve abortion rights. But they otherwise do not exist.
Should intentional homebirths be banned -- yes I think they should -- no issue. The other rights are protected by a combination of portions of the Constitution.
That is misreading the Constitution. If something isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, it doesn’t make it wide open to government authority. It is literally the opposite. Personal rights belong to the people unless government has a compelling interest in which case it must balance the rights and the government interest in the least intrusive way.
DP. You’re both overthinking this. This is about fundamental liberty, a right expressly guaranteed in the constitution.
Anonymous
05/16/2022 16:49
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This has NOTHING to do with abortion and 100% to do with the privacy rights that ARE guaranteed by our constitution.
Women want to give birth at home. Homebirths can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women want to have large families. Large families can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women want to then homeschool their children. Homeschooling can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women have PRIVACY rights, the rights to decide when and how they want to have their children and raise their children.
Make no mistake. This is an attack on ALL women -- women who are pro abortion, women who are anti choice. It really makes NO difference. If you are in favor of women having children and having families and raising those families the way that you think that they should be raised, then be VERY scared of this opinion. It is taking away YOUR rights too. It has NOTHING to do with abortion at all. It states specifically that women have NO fundament rights at all unless they are specifically guaranteed by the constitution.
There are no privacy rights in the Constitution. That is the whole issue. They can be added. People should go for it. I even think an act of Congress could preserve abortion rights. But they otherwise do not exist.
Should intentional homebirths be banned -- yes I think they should -- no issue. The other rights are protected by a combination of portions of the Constitution.
That is misreading the Constitution. If something isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, it doesn’t make it wide open to government authority. It is literally the opposite. Personal rights belong to the people unless government has a compelling interest in which case it must balance the rights and the government interest in the least intrusive way.
Anonymous
05/16/2022 16:38
Subject: Re:“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
That has been my theory all along. Conservative did it because Roberts was within striking distance of getting BK or ACB to his opinion. I expect his opinion to say --- no basis whatsoever for Roe/Casey but since rights were granted to the People 50 years ago it would be wrong to change now and take away rights, even those incorrectly granted.
Anonymous
05/16/2022 16:35
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This has NOTHING to do with abortion and 100% to do with the privacy rights that ARE guaranteed by our constitution.
Women want to give birth at home. Homebirths can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women want to have large families. Large families can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women want to then homeschool their children. Homeschooling can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women have PRIVACY rights, the rights to decide when and how they want to have their children and raise their children.
Make no mistake. This is an attack on ALL women -- women who are pro abortion, women who are anti choice. It really makes NO difference. If you are in favor of women having children and having families and raising those families the way that you think that they should be raised, then be VERY scared of this opinion. It is taking away YOUR rights too. It has NOTHING to do with abortion at all. It states specifically that women have NO fundament rights at all unless they are specifically guaranteed by the constitution.
The supreme court needs to be freed from these unevolved old timey dinosaurs.
It’s not that they’re old timey dinosaurs, it’s that they’re fascists.
Anonymous
05/16/2022 16:35
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:This has NOTHING to do with abortion and 100% to do with the privacy rights that ARE guaranteed by our constitution.
Women want to give birth at home. Homebirths can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women want to have large families. Large families can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women want to then homeschool their children. Homeschooling can be banned. It's not in the constitution, right?
Women have PRIVACY rights, the rights to decide when and how they want to have their children and raise their children.
Make no mistake. This is an attack on ALL women -- women who are pro abortion, women who are anti choice. It really makes NO difference. If you are in favor of women having children and having families and raising those families the way that you think that they should be raised, then be VERY scared of this opinion. It is taking away YOUR rights too. It has NOTHING to do with abortion at all. It states specifically that women have NO fundament rights at all unless they are specifically guaranteed by the constitution.
There are no privacy rights in the Constitution. That is the whole issue. They can be added. People should go for it. I even think an act of Congress could preserve abortion rights. But they otherwise do not exist.
Should intentional homebirths be banned -- yes I think they should -- no issue. The other rights are protected by a combination of portions of the Constitution.