SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[bmjclark]

It still sucks but there are at least options. Unless it gets outlawed federally. Which...I don't think can happen given the ruling.

I don't think it matters what the ruling says because republicans long since realized that they can do whatever they want

[Lenonis]

They all also said Roe v Wade was settled law in their confirmation hearings.

The most baffling thing about all this is that anyone believed them. It was blindingly obvious the agenda of all these yahoos was going after Roe v Wade.

[DarkTZeratul]

While my views on abortions are mixed, to say the least there's a lot of family history for me, I am rather concerned we might see restrictions on contraceptives.

What's next? Banning condoms? IUDs?

Clarence Thomas explicitly said he wants to strike down the decisions prohibiting states from banning contraceptives, premarital/extramarital sex, sodomy, and gay marriage.

[Darththeo]

Except I'm not.

Unless they decide that states can ignore contracts made in other states this issue isn't as clean as you want it to be. The original SCOTUS ruling made that clear.

You mean like how we have had laws that permitted that? How we already have states saying they will enforce it?

You literally have Texas saying they will arrest a woman who has an abortion out of state, they already are showing they are willing to violate the full faith and credit clause.

[Rasulis]

Dick’s Sporting Goods is doing the same. $4000 for the care they may need.

Fourteen GOP legislators warned Lyft that they’d seek to ban companies that pay for abortions from doing business in Texas. The extent of support for the idea is unclear.

So, they are going to kick Tesla, Boring Co., Well's Fargo, Citibank, BofA, Costco, etc. out of Texas?

[Dezerte]

I have asked people if they plan to help raise the kids.

The answer I get is "It isn't their responsibility."

I mean, it will be their responsibility (indirectly) and affect them whether they want to or not. I understand that they might not make this connection, though.

[Lenonis]

Clarence Thomas explicitly said he wants to strike down the decisions prohibiting states from banning contraceptives, premarital/extramarital sex, sodomy, and gay marriage.

But not interracial marriage because he's a total obvious hack.

- - - Updated - - -

they already are showing they are willing to violate the full faith and credit clause.

And we'll have to see if that stands up in court.

[Darththeo]

I mean, it will be their responsibility (indirectly) and affect them whether they want to or not. I understand that they might not make this connection, though.

Nope, their logic is if a woman get pregnant. The only people liable should be her and if she can prove the father, him too.

[Drutt]

This isn't a light switch you realize. Everything changed when gay marriage was legalized and overturning Obergefell doesn't just magically undo all that.

If the conditions that let to the contract being made are later found to be not legal, the contract is void.

There are plenty of reasons marriages (or indeed any form of legal contract) can be declared null and void. There's no reason same sex marriage couldn't be put on that list by states if the conditions that facilitated it in the first place are reversed. I agree it would be a lot messier, but it's a long way from impossible.

[Drutt]

But not interracial marriage because he's a total obvious hack.

It's so blatantly self serving it's almost painful.

[Darththeo]

And we'll have to see if that stands up in court.

Now, what viewpoint is the majority opinion of SCOTUS?

[Fugus]

So, they are going to kick Tesla, Boring Co., Well's Fargo, Citibank, BofA, Costco, etc. out of Texas?

What I would LOVE to see, is if these companies moved themselves and their employees over to states like Wyoming and others in such large numbers that they flipped those smaller states and ensured they couldn't hold the Senate again and then moved on from that.

Watch the nation realign on that way and watch the GOP start seeking to abolish the Senate in response to protect themselves or attempt to divide Texas into smaller states to try and keep control in the Senate.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Nope, their logic is if a woman get pregnant. The only people liable should be her and if she can prove the father, him too.

sort of.

I mean, they all agree that the mother should be liable....they aren't quite so united when it comes to the father having to be liable as well.

[Darththeo]

What I would LOVE to see, is if these companies moved themselves and their employees over to states like Wyoming and others in such large numbers that they flipped those smaller states and ensured they couldn't hold the Senate again and then moved on from that.

Watch the nation realign on that way and watch the GOP start seeking to abolish the Senate in response to protect themselves or attempt to divide Texas into smaller states to try and keep control in the Senate.

The problem would be how to divide Texas. They could get 3 states and keep all red easily. 4 would be pushing it, as Texas does have large blue area.

[Nurasu]

they don't have any ability to ban it themselves

Yes they do. All they have to do is declare fetuses have Constitutional rights.

[Lenonis]

If the conditions that let to the contract being made are later found to be not legal, the contract is void.

Except if it was legal in the state it was made I don't know they can do that. Which is my main point in all this - it's more complicated that people seem to think.

There are plenty of reasons marriages (or indeed any form of legal contract) can be declared null and void. There's no reason same sex marriage couldn't be put on that list by states if the conditions that facilitated it in the first place are reversed. I agree it would be a lot messier, but it's a long way from impossible.

Right, but the messier it is the more political will it takes and the more people have to fight for it which gets to my prior point about the political will to attack LGB folks is waning. I think through a combination of reasons this isn't the slam dunk the doomsayers on here think it is.

Not to mention if you have the corporate backlash to the abortion issue imagine what happens when a workforce loses all it's gay talent because they flee the state to avoid their marriage being nullified. Can you even imagine? I'm not sure people realize how much gay folks are embedded into corporate america.

[Darththeo]

sort of.

I mean, they all agree that the mother should be liable....they aren't quite so united when it comes to the father having to be liable as well.

That's why I put the "if she can prove it." If their son gets someone pregnant, you can't have this child out of wedlock hurt his future.

[Lenonis]

Now, what viewpoint is the majority opinion of SCOTUS?

i don't think even this court is going to strike down the full faith and credit clause of the constitution.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes they do. All they have to do is declare fetuses have Constitutional rights.

They can't do that.

EDIT - meaning a state can't legally do anything to the federal part of the constitution unilaterally. They can declare whatever they want but that doesn't mean it'll hold.

[Fugus]

The problem would be how to divide Texas. They could get 3 states and keep all red easily. 4 would be pushing it, as Texas does have large blue area.

Yeah, but the GOP would also have to get the rest of the nation to agree to that split as well and good luck on that. And if the supreme court tried to screw around and allow it without the rests consent, they would open up California to do the same.

Quite literally just move some from Texas out to the smaller states and flip just 2 of them would be enough to ruin their ability to appoint judges and other stuff while the overall nation still trends more and more against the GOP anyways making it harder to keep control of the house as well.

[Darththeo]

i don't think even this court is going to strike down the full faith and credit clause of the constitution.

No, they'll just say that Marriage is a "State rights" issue and does not fall under the full faith and credit clause.