61–70 of 1001 posts
Interestingly: The NYT link was written 4 hours ago (~6AM EST) - but the decision seems to have been released around ~10AM EST. I suppose everyone expected this post the leak. Without taking any side on this issue: this is a tough day in America, when a 50-year precedent is overturned.
The next case they'll hear is about Mississippi v Some Nonprofit That Pays For Abortion Flights.
This decision overturns the argument that Roe v. Wade was based upon and rights it established.
Overturning Roe v. Wade opens the door for banning contraception, interference with the right to marry (interracial relationships can be banned), family relationships, right to intimacy, the right to personal control of medical treatment. It will even have data collection limit consequences.
I hope that whomever supported this ruling is happy right now, and I'd like to remind them that, while Jesus Christ never gave to abortion the slightest mention, he was quite vocal about the fact that greed was not compatible with salvation. I'd like to see Evangelicals and other Christians being as vocal for social justice as they were for abortions and same sex marriage, but I guess they do care about putting woman back in the kitchen as indentured servants more than they do about social justice.
This doesn't ban abortion, it leaves it up to the states. IMO that's the best since people simply aren't going to agree on it. EDIT: Abortion is not in the Constitution in any way, it's not a right.
I'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.…
Could you explain this a bit more please? (I'm not from the US so I'm possibly missing something but your comment is surprising at a broad strokes level) Edit: I see you've edited your post already with a quote which is helpful.
I basically see people holding states more accountable now. State politicians who are pro-life are on notice. They can no longer cry about it and blame the federal government. The issue is now on their plate- and it's a thorny one. People need to vote.
I work for a company, headquartered in the Mid West, that has been very public in their support of LGBTQ rights, among other things. Do you think corporations should take a public stance in support of abortion rights? Will tech companies continue to flock to Texas, in what will become a very difficult environment for abortion?
"In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage." https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1540338064324698112
Quoted post unavailable.
As an Australian, a few things about the SCOTUS absolutely shock me, aside from the obvious issue of politicisation. I've only skimmed the judgment, but Roberts CJ convincingly points out that there was no need for the court to completely overturn Roe. It would suffice to jettison the viability standard. Going further was completely unnecessary to decide the case. On the other hand, Thomas J took the occasion, withou…
“Judicial activism” refers to striking down state laws. In this case they upheld a law.
The states can ban abortion but not ban concealed carry.