Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a fascinating idea.

The state can restrict travel.

No, states can’t restrict your right to travel to another state, unless you’ve been convicted by a court of law and lost some of your rights as a result.

It’s why, for example, states couldn’t force people to stay in their home state during the various covid lockdowns, or prevent you from traveling into their territory.

Maybe if America was allowed to teach the actual history of this country, you would be aware of a historical precedent. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/fugitive-slave-act

In 1850, slaves didn’t have meaningful rights of any sort that were protected by the US Constitution. Things are pretty different now.

Things are pretty different for now. I think you are really hoping that you’re going to be protected, but I think that you and the others who are pretending that this isn’t a completely radical, anti-American decision are deluding yourselves and the tiniest crack of awareness is dawning. You’re next. You’re not protected from the fascism, either.

This is looney.

Keep that empty head in the sand. That way you won’t see them coming for you.

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.

Speak for yourself.

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.

+1

But it never really was about states rights, was it? The only reason "states rights" became a Republican catchphrase is because "we love slavery" and "f*** women and minorities" is déclassé.

If you think about it, it was always about the states rights to infringe upon the fundamental liberty of their inhabitants that was at stake. Boggles the damn mind how conservatives have been able to spin their fascism as love of liberty.

Anonymous wrote:I have prayed for this day for decades. Praise God!

Anonymous wrote:Now that the decision has been issued and there is no argument for “influencing”, it’s time to protest their homes, their places of worship, and their kids schools until they have no choice but to put themselves into a bunker for the rest of their lives.

Anonymous wrote:Praise God. This is a day right up there with the liberation of concentration camps.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a fascinating idea.

The state can restrict travel.

No, states can’t restrict your right to travel to another state, unless you’ve been convicted by a court of law and lost some of your rights as a result.

It’s why, for example, states couldn’t force people to stay in their home state during the various covid lockdowns, or prevent you from traveling into their territory.

Maybe if America was allowed to teach the actual history of this country, you would be aware of a historical precedent. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/fugitive-slave-act

In 1850, slaves didn’t have meaningful rights of any sort that were protected by the US Constitution. Things are pretty different now.

Things are pretty different for now. I think you are really hoping that you’re going to be protected, but I think that you and the others who are pretending that this isn’t a completely radical, anti-American decision are deluding yourselves and the tiniest crack of awareness is dawning. You’re next. You’re not protected from the fascism, either.

I’m one of the PP’s who never believed Roe was properly decided. So, today”s decision is correct IMO, regardless of whether I’m personally happy with the real world outcome.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anybody read the whole opinion? DH just read most of it and said that Thomas' opinion basically got rid of due process from the past century. Is that accurate?

He said anything related to that ruling should be revisited, including gay marriage and contraception (!!!!!) He's basically inviting conservative states to challenge.

DP. And you know they will.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were a brown/black young person in one of the states where abortion is restricted, I'd seriously try to move to another more liberal state. Let the evangelical whites have 4 or more kids and manage it on on their own. I assume that BC will still be available in the DC area in the years to come. It's like asylum at this point.

Why so the Christian Taliban can entrench itself in the heart of the country?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a fascinating idea.

The state can restrict travel.

Anonymous wrote:Has anybody read the whole opinion? DH just read most of it and said that Thomas' opinion basically got rid of due process from the past century. Is that accurate?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anybody read the whole opinion? DH just read most of it and said that Thomas' opinion basically got rid of due process from the past century. Is that accurate?

He said anything related to that ruling should be revisited, including gay marriage and contraception (!!!!!) He's basically inviting conservative states to challenge.

Anonymous wrote:Has anybody read the whole opinion? DH just read most of it and said that Thomas' opinion basically got rid of due process from the past century. Is that accurate?