SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Poopymonster]

I wanna know if pregnant women can claim their fetus as a dependent? Can they get benefits for the fetus? I mean, there are a lot of open-ended legal questions with granting fetal personhood.

Some pregnant woman in one of the bumblefuck states should apply for benefits or some shit for their fetus. When denied, sue.

[cubby]

I wanna know if pregnant women can claim their fetus as a dependent? Can they get benefits for the fetus? I mean, there are a lot of open-ended legal questions with granting fetal personhood.

There are a lot of open ended questions - all of them lead down dark roads. Privacy? Gone. Health privacy? Gone. The "benefits for the fetus" question is, imo, a bad choice for the democrats. Because how would the GOP respond? Give the fetus benefits - making the path for a national anti-abortion law.

- - - Updated - - -

this is where democrats fail

they should be pushing bills like this that would allow you to claim them. Start getting food stamps once you know you are pregnant. Start getting that +1 on any other benefits you qualify for.

Pushing bills in the hundreds of billions to fund programs for unwanted children, orphanages and foster care system so we can watch republican vote against them

Pushing additional funding in Medicaid for states that allow abortion.

I think the democrats would be illadvised to push that argument. If a fetus is awarded "rights" and given benefits, we'll see a national anti-abortion law shortly afterwards, if not sooner.

IMO that argument helps the GOP.

[cubby]

The GOP won’t give benefits to living breathing people, but you think they’re gonna give them to fetuses?

You're right, the GOP won't actually give benefits to anyone, but they would pass a bill saying fetus' get the same rights as people, including whatever shitty healthcare they allow. Because then...abortion would be murder. It's their path, or at least one of their paths, to an anti-abortion national law.

[Poopymonster]

You're right, the GOP won't actually give benefits to anyone, but they would pass a bill saying fetus' get the same rights as people, including whatever shitty healthcare they allow. Because then...abortion would be murder. It's their path, or at least one of their paths, to an anti-abortion national law.

Imagine the number of anchor babies from vacations to the US.

[Fugus]

My head hurts trying to extrapolate the various implications of this kinda shit. I really hope they codify Roe with the watered-down bill.

You and me both, but given the current track record, the court might try and strike it down as unconstitutional or just refuse to take up violations of it like they have already done with Texas.

They NEED to expand the court with actual principled judges or pass ethics requirements for the judges. And for the love of fucking god they need to get off their ass and press charges on Kavanaugh for perjury and investigate him debt pay off and his past. If they don't have the balls to even do that, then we know anything else they do is a dog and pony show. They have him dead to rights on that right now.

[cubby]

My head hurts trying to extrapolate the various implications of this kinda shit. I really hope they codify Roe with the watered-down bill.

Same - but it's unlikely.

Roe dying will pave the way for a conservative court to kill privacy rights. Which might impact healthcare/HIPPA, and will certainly impact internet privacy and corporation rights. And then we walk down that whole horrifying path - basically GATACA.

Abortion becomes national illegal. Women's rights are thrown back to the dark ages.

[postman1782]

Same - but it's unlikely.

Roe dying will pave the way for a conservative court to kill privacy rights. Which might impact healthcare/HIPPA, and will certainly impact internet privacy and corporation rights. And then we walk down that whole horrifying path - basically GATACA.

Abortion becomes national illegal. Women's rights are thrown back to the dark ages.

If privacy isn't a right, then neither are guns, since they aren't directly outlined in the constitution as well. Arms could be limited to swords and knives for all Alito cares.

[Endus]

If privacy isn't a right, then neither are guns, since they aren't directly outlined in the constitution as well. Arms could be limited to swords and knives for all Alito cares.

Pff.

It means the two limbs attached to you at your shoulders.

Anything else is interpretation.

[s_bushido]

Pff.

It means the two limbs attached to you at your shoulders.

Anything else is interpretation.

Um, excuse me. But I don't have bear arms. I'm not that hairy.

[Zan15]

There are a lot of open ended questions - all of them lead down dark roads. Privacy? Gone. Health privacy? Gone. The "benefits for the fetus" question is, imo, a bad choice for the democrats. Because how would the GOP respond? Give the fetus benefits - making the path for a national anti-abortion law.

- - - Updated - - -



I think the democrats would be illadvised to push that argument. If a fetus is awarded "rights" and given benefits, we'll see a national anti-abortion law shortly afterwards, if not sooner.

IMO that argument helps the GOP.

unfortunately i think till we get rid of 2 senators we are going to see a national law soon anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Um, excuse me. But I don't have bear arms. I'm not that hairy.

Bear arms? The right to Bear Arms?
Is that Bear as in Gay man's arms?

Republicans want to protect the right to gay "bears" arms?

Yah based on the past dozen years of republicans getting caught doing all kinds of uber gay stuff, i believe it.

[cubby]

If privacy isn't a right, then neither are guns, since they aren't directly outlined in the constitution as well. Arms could be limited to swords and knives for all Alito cares.

Privacy has always been a penumbra of the Constitution, never implicit, like speech or guns. Doing away with it has always been a conservative strict interpretation by SCOTUS justices.

[postman1782]

Privacy has always been a penumbra of the Constitution, never implicit, like speech or guns. Doing away with it has always been a conservative strict interpretation by SCOTUS justices.

I mean we have the 9th and 14th amendments, but now they are just going to ignore that. Only because they probably will never get the chance to do it again.

[Kronik85]

You and me both, but given the current track record, the court might try and strike it down as unconstitutional or just refuse to take up violations of it like they have already done with Texas.

They NEED to expand the court with actual principled judges or pass ethics requirements for the judges. And for the love of fucking god they need to get off their ass and press charges on Kavanaugh for perjury and investigate him debt pay off and his past. If they don't have the balls to even do that, then we know anything else they do is a dog and pony show. They have him dead to rights on that right now.

What do you after you lose the House and the Senate (like you are about to) and then the Republicans just stack the SC with even more Originalist Justices?

Once you open that door then you are super fucked long term. I mean you are probably going say "but we are fucked now!" but you ain't that fucked yet.

[Draco-Onis]

What do you after you lose the House and the Senate (like you are about to) and then the Republicans just stack the SC with even more Originalist Justices?

Once you open that door then you are super fucked long term. I mean you are probably going say "but we are fucked now!" but you ain't that fucked yet.

We're going down that road of escalation anyways, I love the optimism though but no republicans would do the same. The smart thing to do would be to impeach them because they lied under oath which is a nice workaround. But I don't think you need to worry any of these scenarios, the DNC has been steadfast about doing nothing while republicans continue to escalate.

Although Sinema and Manchin get a lot of flack they are really covering for other "conservative" democrats that don't want to change things including Biden.

[gondrin]

Pff.

It means the two limbs attached to you at your shoulders.

Anything else is interpretation.

You know it means we have a right to the animal bear's arms. Not sure what type of bear arms but might be grizzly, might be polar. Hell, might be panda. And everyone knows that bears can do some serious damage.

Either this or they are talking about Robin William level of hairy arms.

[D3thray]

Imagine the number of anchor babies from vacations to the US.

Hah, I wonder if getting pregnant in the US would be considered enough to grant your child US citizenship? Or why stop there, why not the moment your dad produced half of you in his ballsack?

Edit: ooh, or even when your mom produced half of you forever ago? Sooo many ‘US citizens’ need repatriation now. Turns out your grandma who emigrated to Chile was retroactively considered a US citizen so you and all your children are too by birth right.

[Dontrike]

Hah, I wonder if getting pregnant in the US would be considered enough to grant your child US citizenship?

If you're going to treat the fetus as a person that can very well happen. If you don't want people to walk through the door then don't open it for them.

[Jastall]

Hah, I wonder if getting pregnant in the US would be considered enough to grant your child US citizenship? Or why stop there, why not the moment your dad produced half of you in his ballsack?

Edit: ooh, or even when your mom produced half of you forever ago? Sooo many ‘US citizens’ need repatriation now. Turns out your grandma who emigrated to Chile was retroactively considered a US citizen so you and all your children are too by birth right.

The pro play will be to get impregnated in the US then have the baby born somewhere in the EU. Gotta cover all bases. If the government demands proof of said impregnation that results in a person the second daddy comes into mommy, getchu cameras out and make some money outta amateur porn on the side while you're at it.

The idea is very obviously stupid and anyone espousing it only does so to serve a political agenda. I doubt it will go far outside of the legislatures of some of "those" States.

[Sett]

I hope we can get mandatory vasectomies for every male from ages 10 to 30 in America. If we're going full retard logic with this I'm all in favor of having the government regulate a man's body as well. Takes two to make a baby!

[Fugus]

I hope we can get mandatory vasectomies for every male from ages 10 to 30 in America. If we're going full retard logic with this I'm all in favor of having the government regulate a man's body as well. Takes two to make a baby!

At which point you will get a version of the infamous words of Crystal Minton:

"I thought Trump was going to do good things. He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”