What a travesty! What these pro life nuts don't understand is that if I can't have sex without consequences, my Friday nights will be ruined! A woman should have the right to choose whether or not to sleep with whoever and whenever! Support the right to choose!
Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
911–920 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#912I'm just glad it's down to the states to decide what's right for their state. Right?
Really good point, but why stop there? Why not individual counties, or individual townships, or individual neighborhoods, or gasp individual people?
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#913A lot of people are missing a very important core issue What Alito and others did by over turning a previous supreme court ruling is open the bad box in that any time a majority changes on the supreme court there will be an attempt to over turn past rulings not based upon law but based on feelings of the court. the only sliver lining is that there is growing evidence that at least 3 supreme court justice might be imp…
[deleted]
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#914The Supreme Court neither banned abortion nor prohibited the legislature from protecting the right to abortion. It merely decided that it is not currently protected by constitution, which to me seems completely correct. If most people agree that it should be a constitutional right, no one stops the legislature from adding the required amendment. And if most people can't agree on that, well, adding that wouldn't be de…
How is it completely correct? The 9th amendment acknowledges that rights not enumerated in the constitution exist. It's perfectly reasonable to say that bodily autonomy is in fact one of those rights, as the concept is required for other rights to even exist.
The court decision goes over the process it uses to determine if something is an unenumerated right:
"We have held that the “established method of substantive-due-process analysis” requires that an unenumerated right be “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’” before it can be recognized as a component of the “liberty” protected in the Due Process Clause. Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 721; cf. Timbs, 586 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7)."
There is a lengthy appendix to the ruling that goes through the list of prior state laws that criminalized abortion and shows that a right to abortion is not, in fact, "deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition".
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#915More work needs to be done, but this is a start.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#916I'm pro-choice but I still believe that this is the right move. > “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.…
I'm pro-choice as well and think this was the right decision. Roe created a Constitutional right that didn't exist. All this does today is correct that mistake.
As a big believer in states' rights, I"m glad to see more rights returned to their voters and legislatures. As was frequently told to me, "If you don't like it, you can move to another state." And I did.
Furthermore, this decision gets rid of the viability precedent so more extreme liberals states are now free to pass all the 3rd tri-mester up-until-the-moment-of-birth abortion laws they want, free of any potential legal challenges.
This gives states and their voters, the citizens, the people the right to choose. And I'm all for that.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#917When I was a child in the Catholic Church (70s and 80s) there was NEVER any political discussion that entered into the service (“..render unto caesar what is caesar’s..” or ‘separation of church and state’. Or, more probable, perhaps it was felt that it simply was not the forum for present-day politics. I don’t know). Since lapsed, A few years ago I was encouraged by a priest, as he enjoyed his fourth old fashioned,…
I never experienced long political diatribes when I attended Catholic mass a few years ago. There wasn't much time for speaking as the mass itself is quite involved.
> It occurred to me that all of this must have been carefully planned at the highest levels of both the church and political/financial benefactors that support it.
I'm curious if we'll see leaks confirming this. Otherwise this might be an anecdote stretched a little too far. It's far more likely you've experienced some bad pastors.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#918I strongly recommend reading Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s thoughts on Roe v Wade in 1992 - expressed about a year before she became a Supreme Court justice. She describes Roe as a “breathtaking” decision and as interrupting a process already underway. Her discussion starts on page 1198 in this PDF which is a rewarding read if you have the time. I’m not advocating either way - I merely hope to present Justice Ginsbergs eloqu…
this may come across as emotional, and I suspect it is, so feel free to downvote me. but that person, dead or alive, is completely non-grata to me. she is a big part to blame for allowing the court to become so heavily conservative. if she had stood down in Obama's early years, when she was asked to, it would be a 5-4 split, and a good chance that they wouldn't have had the balls to follow through with this
I'll try my best to phrase this delicately, as I understand it's an emotional topic for Americans right now, but perhaps RBG chose not to step down because she knew that the action of stepping down was inherently political, and after years on the court, had decided to avoid setting a precedent of Blue/Red judges tactically stepping down when their respective party is in power.
Who knows what her real reasoning may have been, but that's my interpretation.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#919Looking at this ruling and the one a few days ago on arms - could someone explain to me why they're wrong legally? FYI I'm not American and personally am in favour of legalised abortion + severe gun restrictions. My understanding is these rulings are both based on the constitution. The one on guns seems really straightforward: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of th…
Re: guns, if the militia is well regulated then the militia needs to explain guns getting into the hands of people that kill kids as well as insanely high per capita murder rates (primarily in red states, it should be mentioned). Maybe time to disband a militia that can't regulate itself? This is aside from the founders not being presented with a firearm that can put 6" holes into a kindergartner's body at the rate o…
>This is aside from the founders not being presented with a firearm that can put 6" holes into a kindergartner's body at the rate of 45 rounds per minute.
Citation required... the only way you're going to get a 6" hole in a human body is with something like a .50 BMG (which is an anti-material rifle) or maybe a .45-70.
Re: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade
#920I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…
Gerrymandering, the electoral college, and the senate ensures that it isn't a majority whose views are represented, but rather the distribution of voters in states/districts (disproportionate voting power) that influences who becomes our representatives. This is compounded with how flawed First past the post voting is.