SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Captain N]

“domestic supply of infants”
"market demands"

wat.

But remember when Project Veritas made up bullshit about how Planned Parenthood was selling baby parts....

...now we have a SCOTUS judge literally wanting women to birth children for sale.

[gondrin]

“domestic supply of infants”
"market demands"

wat.

I'm going to say something, it is going to be disgusting, even thinking about it is bothering me in a bad way. I'll say we start with Barrett, since she is so concerned about it. She lets herself get strapped down, fucked by guys and pump out infants nonstop like a machine. No downtime since she claims market forces demand it.


Infracted.

[Poopymonster]

I'm going to say something, it is going to be disgusting, even thinking about it is bothering me in a bad way. I'll say we start with Barrett, since she is so concerned about it. She lets herself get strapped down, fucked by guys and pump out infants nonstop like a machine. No downtime since she claims market forces demand it.

Coming soon: Axlotl tanks.
Then the next generation: Daemonculaba.

[Glorious Leader]

Coming soon: Axlotl tanks.
Then the next generation: Daemonculaba.

We could bring back all the atreideis

[gondrin]

Who could possibly argue that this isn't the case. The entire party is just morally bankrupt, they have nothing but oppression and culture wars.


I guess everything just ties back to the right wing projecting their own thoughts/reality onto everyone else, because everything they've accused others of, it always comes back they support such things.


It'll probably get you an infraction in some way, but that is pretty much the image such language conjures.

If I get infracted, so be it. Unless a person is the first in line to sign up for something they want to promote others doing, they don't need to say "We need to be doing X thing." Either walk the walk or shut up about it.

[Mihalik]

she claims market forces demand it.

You misunderstand. None of this applies to her. She's a rich, white, god fearing woman. She could always just fly to a clinic in Canada or Europe.

No no. This only applies to those lowly unwomen poors, libs, PoCs, feminists, apostates etc.

[gondrin]

You misunderstand. None of this applies to her. She's a rich, white, god fearing woman. She could always just fly to a clinic in Canada or Europe.

No no. This only applies to those lowly unwomen poors, libs, PoCs, feminists, apostates etc.

You know, every time a rich person says something that only affects the poors, I think back to Marie Antoinette and what must have been going through her mind as she was attached the guillotine.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Presented without context, for anyone who thinks the 'Brood mares' stuff is just hyperbole.

There's also the subtext there... when she says "domestic" what she really means is "white".

[Azadina]

Here's something I don't understand.

Is someone who is "pro life" going to agree that allowing an abortion for an entopic pregnancy is okay? The fetus is not viable and the mother WILL die.

Yeah cool? So murdering an "unborn" is okay in this case.

If you say not even then, you are condemning a woman to death- the fetus is dead either way.

To continue on that: the woman is condemned to death, so what of the father? Certainly he must also be arrested and executed for the murder of a "baby" they made.

Or, what? The men have no consequence in any of it?

[Captain N]

To continue on that: the woman is condemned to death, so what of the father? Certainly he must also be arrested and executed for the murder of a "baby" they made.

Or, what? The men have no consequence in any of it?

Nope. The whole thing behind anti-abortion is the punishment of the woman. If she didn't want the pregnancy she should not have had sex. By accepting the offer of intercourse it immediately relieves the men of all responsibilities...or some other bullshit they keep making up.

[Glorious Leader]

Clarence Thomas is crying about the courts getting bullied now.

[Mihalik]

Clarence Thomas is crying about the courts getting bullied now.

Why are you mad at us? We're just plotting to take away your human rights!

[Templar 331]

Clarence Thomas is crying about the courts getting bullied now.

Wasn't his wife for bullying Congress to keep Trump in office? "Rules for thee" and all that.

[enigma77]

Here's something I don't understand.

Is someone who is "pro life" going to agree that allowing an abortion for an entopic pregnancy is okay? The fetus is not viable and the mother WILL die.

Yeah cool? So murdering an "unborn" is okay in this case.

If you say not even then, you are condemning a woman to death- the fetus is dead either way.

If the mother's health is at risk abortion is justified.

[D Luniz]

Presented without context, for anyone who thinks the 'Brood mares' stuff is just hyperbole.

Alito put that on page 34 of the brief as well

[Jastall]

States don't have jurisdiction on actions taken in other states. If any of them hit law, the sections on that die on lawsuit. The only thing they can do is stop people from importing abortion pills into the state (again, proposed legislation subject to change)

You manage to criticize a quote about willingness to compromise, in a post section about possibility of compromise, without talking about the compromise. Ok, you want to remind people that a decision that overturns Roe changes more than just the 15 weeks law? Fine. Don't pretend that's a response to me.

If the anecdote is a spectacularly bad optics play, I think you don't really believe this. Did he pass some disconnected legislation in Cancun or something?

The court doesn't get to decide what's extreme or what's not. It has no relevance here in setting policy.

Yes, we're going to disagree about a politicized court. They're taking good steps in removing some of the absolute insanity done by liberal majorities and some 5-4 decisions with a swing vote of yesteryear. But libs will always moan when they don't get to pass their legislative agenda through court decree, when their legislative program fails. Conservatives are used to it, it makes no difference.

I can join you in criticism of state laws, but I think you're being awfully deceitful on calling '"muh state's right" drivel is a smokescreen.' Who gets to decide matters of extreme importance is a huge question in a constitutional republic. You may think doing everything all at once nationally, through the supreme court or congress, ought to be good (or, really, is good, but only when things go your way), but I'm very set against it in questions like the one before us. You want to talk smokescreen, and missing the point, but you're gliding over the point and trying to ignore the criticism. I can say "The Texas Law is a bad law, for reason of the private right of action." It doesn't pain me to say that. Whether or not you can settle it there, or want to allege state's issues need also to be a smokescreen for nefarious purposes, is a reflection of who you are in this debate.

Something like 10k-12k abortions happen in the last trimester. Pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. That's like the level of gun homicides in the same country. I'm not joining you in "it hardly ever happens, so keeping it legal doesn't matter." Very rare events like abortions due to incest and rape also lower than that 2% level, but exemptions based on those are talked about nonstop. So, sorry, but no dice from me. If third trimester, or last 4 weeks, or last 2 weeks, or last two minutes should be legal, rarity isn't the excuse.

The constitution not guaranteeing the right of abortion, and why that's part of the slide towards fascism. Well, perhaps the unborn children will disagree. They don't exactly get to vote on what's a fascist instinct towards their life, but disregarding the most vulnerable is kind of the progressive position here.

Now we've got the baby-growing-inside-mommy-is-the-same-as-a-blood-donor argument. How about we get some rights for the baby, then talk about how to find donors for blood and organs? There's a nasty transition, perhaps counted in hours, between when a baby may be receiving the blood transfusions you're trying to source, and when the baby's life may be ended with no legal repercussions.

The court is very, very relevant in setting policy lol. In theory maybe not, in practice it absolutely is, and you being fine with it because they judge your way this time does not change the truth. In fact judging by the memo it takes pride in the fact that it's going after progressive policies. Hell they even withheld a verdict on the Texan law even you call bad, more than likely because they'd already decided Roe was getting kicked out the door and thus had no real issue with literal bounty hunting becoming legal so long as it served political needs. You choosing to ignore context because it is convenient is hardly my or anyone else's fault.

Let's look at your claim about third trimester abortions as well. There's precious little research on the subject yet let's start with the fact that According to the CDC (I haven't seen the numbers in more recent reports), abortions after 21 weeks account for about 1.3% of them. They make no mentions of trimesters and I did not find the data you claimed at the Guttmacher Institude's website. The situation is also very complicated by the fact that abortions later than 21 weeks can happen due to medical necessity, or the mother not having easy access to an operation beforehand. To say nothing of the fact that, if removing the fetus is a crime because it's a person, the trimester hardly matters in the first place, any abortion would be a murder and miscarriage would be considered an accidental death.

Furthermore, citation needed on abortion due to incest/rape being rare, and also medical conditions matter and can be an important drive for abortions as well. By a macabre coincidence my best friend's girlfriend just had an ectopic pregnancy detected literally yesterday so I did some research on the subject once home. More or less automatically fatal for the fetus, and happens in 1 to 2% of pregnancies. With no abortion, the mother is highly likely to die as well. That's just one condition that requires it. Any law that says no to that is full-on monstrous and there is no deflection to late-term abortion that will change my mind on the subject. No state should have the power to condemn a woman to death like this.

And yes, state's right is a smokescreen for this kind of people and in this kind of debate. As it was for slavery, where slaving states clamored for it as a primary defense but had no problem passing the Fugitive Slave Act. It was used as a both shield and cudgel by opponents of gay rights, interracial marriage, and those in support of segregation, among other things. I'm not attacking the principle here, I'm attacking clear abuses of said principle in service of hypocritical and oppressive ideologies that will drop it like a sack of potato the second it becomes inconvenient. As I've said, any mention of state's right as a defense of anti-abortion law will evaporate when they move to ban it nationwide, likely after either the 2022 or 2024 elections. But by then it'll be far too late for anyone to say "I told you so".

[Crissi]

If the mother's health is at risk abortion is justified.

too bad staztes like mine (Texas) have made iot vague and also require to see if the fetus can be saved first. Which means doctors may be too scared of Texas law to provide life saving services in time, much like what happened in ireland.

[Mehrunes]

"Why won't anyone respect our venomous and meritless bigotry" is the weirdest fuckin' take of the '20s.

It's at least on the podium for sure.

The point is, nowadays a fetus has a good chance of surviving after week ~25, so basically for the entire last three months of a normal pregnancy. And that makes it a lot harder to argue for an abortion without medical reasons in this timeframe.

And aside from a few states in US there's no jurisdiction on Earth that allows abortions this late for non-medical reasons. And even in those states late term abortions are 1. the stark minority of all abortions and 2. still performed basically only for medical reasons, because as shocking as it may be, women actually aren't inherently stupid and if they want to perform an abortion for non-medical reason they do it as soon as possible because the risks are lower the earlier you do it.

The reason why people think abortions should be regulated is because they think this is not just a personal decision when there is a third party involved - the fetus. Yeah, a fetus isn't a baby with full human rights and all, but at least at the point where the birth is really all that seperates one from the other I find it hard to think that is deserves no rights whatsoever. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

Come back to me when the people holding those views actually pass legislation granting fetuses personhood alongside their abortion bans. Because until then they are worthless hypocrites who only present themselves as the champions of fetal rights when it's convenient for pushing their medieval religious zealotry on people who dare not to live their lives according to a book written by iron age desert dwellers that knew nothing about anything, but then fail to actually walk the talk. All because they can't be arsed dealing with the clusterfuck of legal ramifications that their "deeply held" conviction in regards to treating fetuses as persons would create.

See, it's not an issue of this dogshit viewpoint being hard to understand. Because it's not. It's an issue of "pro-life" folks being full of crap (as is conservative tradition) to the point that their "pro-life" facade collapses on itself within seconds all thanks to their monumental levels of inconsistency, exposing their real anti-women agenda they hide underneath. And you'll have to excuse me if I think this agenda deserves no consideration or respect.

If you can't see the difference between a situation where someone dies because noone goes out of their way to help them, and where someone is actively killed for someone's convenience then i can't help you.

And I've never said women shouldn't have a choice about their pregnancy. But I think at some point they should make a decision and stand by it, to avoid abortions in the late stage of fetus development (there are exeptions of course).

If you're not here to argue for the Republican position then how about you don't peddle their appeals to emotion that have no basis in reality? Because late term abortions aren't an issue of "convenience". Late term abortions are essentially exclusively done for medical reasons, oftentimes for reasons that literally can't be detected in earlier stages of pregnancy and are a result of tragic circumstances forcing women to make hard decision, even if they were otherwise willing to bring the pregnancy to term. If they wanted to abort out of convenience one would think they'd go for an early term abortion that nowadays has less risk than a colonoscopy (which itself is a rather routine procedure) rather than doing it much later when they can suffer dangerous complications.

[tehdang]

Again, these people don't care. It is meant as a scare tactic. And the people who will be impacted the most by it can't afford a lawsuit.

The idea of "They can't do it, so it won't happen" is false when they are literally already trying to do it.

States do all kind of ridiculous left-wing garbage against the second amendment, rights regarding religious expression, and free speech rights. I'm not standing for a holier-than-thou attitude on Republican-dominant legislatures. One distinction is you're talking about proposed bills, not passed bills, and still subject to debate and vote within the legislature. You're ignoring an important pruning process to raise hype on "they're trying to X!"

Don't the democrats control the house / senate / presidency? How can they do nothing to combat this?

They don't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. And they don't have the required House or Senate majorities for a constitutional amendment.

I tell you what: you find literally one single case of government that gives any kind of government benefit to any unborn children. Any instance of Medicare of Medicaid for the child (I said child not mother), unborn children being counted in the census, unborn children getting food stamps, that kind of thing.

Oh, and don't think you can get away with "you can't murder them" because you can't murder a tourist or illegal immigrant, either.

Literally one single case where an unborn child is treated as a citizen. One. Then, we'll talk about their rights.

You have 24 hours. Clock started 9 months ago.

The good old "rights only exist in terms of government welfare" argument. You have the right to purchase a gun for lawful self-defense, but the government doesn't have to subsidize your purchase in order for your second-amendment rights to exist.

The National Review, which pretty much is pro-life, is of the opinion that the GOP has lost the war on mifepristone and misoprostol. Anybody with internet access can click on Aidaccess.org and get them for free. The pills will be delivered in brown envelopes from any number of locations throughout the world. The one disadvantage is delivery can take 10 days. The vast majority of Aidaccess clients is from Texas.

It's more appropriate to say the National Review knows widely available chemical abortion pills is a current issue for the pro-life movement to address. Remember that it also cheers reversals to chemical abortions, APR or Abortion-Pill Reversal, criticizes the FDA decisions and safety of them.

According to the latest UC Berkeley poll, CA voters are overwhelmingly in support of pro-choice. Support in Central Valley is the lowest at over 70%. Surprisingly support in San Diego/Orange County is as high as the Bay Area - over 80%. Over 60% of GOP voters in CA support women’s right to have an abortion.

Under Article 1, Section 1 of the state Constitution, which includes an explicit right to privacy, “all women in this state - rich and poor alike - possess a fundamental constitutional right to choose whether or not to bear a child.” Which is why as far back as 1969, three years before California’s voters had approved privacy rights and four years before the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, the state’s high court had recognized constitutional protections for the choice of childbirth or abortion.

Amazing that California's voters were able to vote, through their representatives, on the issue of abortion. You'd get the impression from dozens of posters here that every state relied on a bunch of male judges for the last 50 years.

Interestingly enough, if the pro-choice crowd had made actual attempts are persuasion and legislation in this time period across all states, they might be in a better position now. If this decision stands close to the leaked draft, they'll have to reboot efforts from next to nil, if they truly believe they have a persuasive argument regarding early-term abortions or full-9-month-legal abortions.

The issue is expected to increase turnout and forced GOP candidates to make a choice between the two camps.

It might drive some Dem turnout. On the flip side, senators like Tim Ryan running in purple states are forced to choose between the activists no-restrictions-whatsoever woman-and-doctor-only, and moderate positions that have better support. Tim Ryan specifically was asked if he supported any restrictions whatsoever in late-term abortions, and said 'you've got to leave it up to the woman.' I think his chances of election dropped significantly.

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree here. Which is totally okay.

I appreciate your viewpoint and your passion, but I do not think you'll change my mind, to me abortion is a form of murder, the deliberate destruction of human life, immature as it may be. No amount of talk about bodily autonomy will change that simple truth. And I really don't believe that the organ transplant analogy makes any sense, nobody wants to force people to donate organs against their will, people want to stop people from killing unborn children. And as I said previously forcing people to donate a kidney is not the same thing as stopping an abortion, since there is a difference between killing and not saving people. Another poster argued that an abortion is the same thing, i.e. choosing not to save the child. I disagree with that viewpoint strongly, you can't claim you're merely not saving a life when you are the direct cause of its death.

Also for what it's worth I think comparing people who disapprove of abortion to proponents of slavery does not serve your side well.

Strong disagreements, indeed. I don't think implicit comparison of developing babies to donated organs, or comparisons between pro-life and slavery, is going to help the pro-choice side politically.

"Future citizen" isn't a thing in law and, weirdly enough, no Bible-thumping state that gets triggered by abortion being legal is willing to bestow citizenship, or even personhood (with all the legal protection it entails) to fetuses. Because they are full of shit and this whole thing is about enforcing their religious dogma upon women and has squat to do with protecting lives. There's a reason why red states keep defunding prenatal or postnatal care.

"Potential life" is in the law because it is in Roe. The rights of the developing baby are explicitly weighed against the pregnant woman's health in the decision. I don't care if you dislike how I term "future citizen," but there will be an explicit weighing of those interests in the law. Also, nice anti-religion-chest-thumping. Telling people they're wrong and they don't actually believe the side they're arguing for is part of the reason that the pro-choice argument never made any gains for decades, according to polling.

People deserve only as much respect as they earned and right wingers do everything in their power to earn none. That's their choice, I suppose, but they don't get to then whine about not being respected.

It's good to see you agree with my point. This is the current belief. Canpinter was wrong.

Women's bodily autonomy is indeed a women's rights issue, shocking as it may be to people civilizationally stuck in the neolithic. And please drop this pretentious pearl clutching shtick about not all opinions being treated equally when not all opinions are equal to begin with. Opinions like yours where "Akshually it's OK for women to be subjugated a bit. Why can't liberals be reasonable and compromise on that?" deserve no appreciation whatsoever.

Surprisingly enough, redoubling your efforts in justifying why you're doing this and feel fine doing this is absolutely confirmation that the pro-choice movement holds the following things and makes no attempts to hide them. I thank you for your honesty and confirmation. Twice in the same post.

Here's something I don't understand.

Is someone who is "pro life" going to agree that allowing an abortion for an entopic pregnancy is okay? The fetus is not viable and the mother WILL die.

Yeah cool? So murdering an "unborn" is okay in this case.

If you say not even then, you are condemning a woman to death- the fetus is dead either way.

Ectopic pregnancies are acknowledged as a medical necessity, and a non-viable pregnancy. They're already covered in life-of-the-mother exemptions (and both lives are threatened by them, the uterus is the only place for life to continue). The same goes for D&C to complete a miscarriage. No pro-life person I've met, nor pro-life law I've seen passed, prohibits medical treatment for the condition with life-threatening consequences for the mother, and no hope for life for the child.

If the mother's health is at risk abortion is justified.

You beat me to the main response.

Yeah sure, I'm not arguing for Republican positions here, I'm just surprised and a bit bewildered by how many posters here seem to think abortion is not a debatable issue, that there are no ethical problems involved and there should be no restrictions at all. Or at least that how is comes across.

Republicans are indeed happy for people that go further than the debate to declare this is not a debatable issue and no ethical problems are involved. If major pro-choice activists saw how much aid this gave Republicans politically, I think they'd drop that position immediately. Even if someone swears that they agree there are ethical issues implicated, they can't help the fact that rational observers see that the opposite comes across.

The court is very, very relevant in setting policy lol. In theory maybe not, in practice it absolutely is, and you being fine with it because they judge your way this time does not change the truth. In fact judging by the memo it takes pride in the fact that it's going after progressive policies. Hell they even withheld a verdict on the Texan law even you call bad, more than likely because they'd already decided Roe was getting kicked out the door and thus had no real issue with literal bounty hunting becoming legal so long as it served political needs. You choosing to ignore context because it is convenient is hardly my or anyone else's fault.

So, you know I'm against the court having an active role in setting policy. I'm fine with states setting out an abortion policy that their constituents approve of in moral value and results. How else to chart the results to the court deciding that the constitution does not grant a fundamental right to abortion? I say that's a distinct move in the correct direction of relieving the court of it's policy-making project. You can argue "no policy, is a policy" if you want to get into semantics.

"Withholding a verdict" is an absolutely poor way of saying "No verdict was actually made, they withheld a stay." Stays are granted under different criteria, and explicitly are made before any verdict is made.

Let's look at your claim about third trimester abortions as well. There's precious little research on the subject yet let's start with the fact that According to the CDC (I haven't seen the numbers in more recent reports), abortions after 21 weeks account for about 1.3% of them. They make no mentions of trimesters and I did not find the data you claimed at the Guttmacher Institude's website. The situation is also very complicated by the fact that abortions later than 21 weeks can happen due to medical necessity, or the mother not having easy access to an operation beforehand. To say nothing of the fact that, if removing the fetus is a crime because it's a person, the trimester hardly matters in the first place, any abortion would be a murder and miscarriage would be considered an accidental death.

For sake of argument, let's take under consideration 1.3%. It's an undercount, and states like New Mexico hit considerably higher. Taking the CDC number for sake of argument, that amounts to something around 8500-12000 viable babies every year. I use the gun violence analogy, because it's regularly claimed that there's too many guns and gun crimes are epidemic. 2020 involved gun murder/homicide numbers of 13,620. Very comparable numbers, and worth taking into the debate. On-the-order of 10,000 a year absolutely must be in the debate, and policies that forbid restrictions on them must be weighed on merits, not percent rarity.

I was also bringing up late-term vs early-term, because Democrats are the furthest from the public on not supporting restrictions as the pregnant mother enters her final weeks of pregnancy. Terms of compromise center around "at least let the woman whose contraception fails, or just learned she was pregnant, to terminate at that point." As the weeks get closer to 40, and early deliveries of a healthy child imbued with a full set of constitutional and legal rights gain a high percentage, this argument collapses and adoption and restriction gain in force. This is a compromise from the personhood argument of developing life in the womb, not proof that it never mattered in the first place.

Furthermore, citation needed on abortion due to incest/rape being rare, and also medical conditions matter and can be an important drive for abortions as well. By a macabre coincidence my best friend's girlfriend just had an ectopic pregnancy detected literally yesterday so I did some research on the subject once home. More or less automatically fatal for the fetus, and happens in 1 to 2% of pregnancies. With no abortion, the mother is highly likely to die as well. That's just one condition that requires it. Any law that says no to that is full-on monstrous and there is no deflection to late-term abortion that will change my mind on the subject. No state should have the power to condemn a woman to death like this.

Guttmacher estimated rape at 1%, incest at 0.5%.A later survey concluded that both were overestimates. Read earlier in this post for my thoughts on ectopic pregnancies.

And yes, state's right is a smokescreen for this kind of people and in this kind of debate. As it was for slavery, where slaving states clamored for it as a primary defense but had no problem passing the Fugitive Slave Act. It was used as a both shield and cudgel by opponents of gay rights, interracial marriage, and those in support of segregation, among other things. I'm not attacking the principle here, I'm attacking clear abuses of said principle in service of hypocritical and oppressive ideologies that will drop it like a sack of potato the second it becomes inconvenient. As I've said, any mention of state's right as a defense of anti-abortion law will evaporate when they move to ban it nationwide, likely after either the 2022 or 2024 elections. But by then it'll be far too late for anyone to say "I told you so".

Sigh, same old just-like-slavery-before-it to you. Just state for the record whether my thoughts on the real debating ground for abortion in law make you suspect I want states to decide to reinstitute slavery, segregation, bans on interracial marriage, etc. The secret motives of evil men are an un-falsifiable topic. I could say, if I were as flippant, that people wanting the Supreme Court as their master legislator are the same kinds of people that secretly stan Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott. You're happy to make comparisons to antebellum America when it comes to the Fugitive Slave Act, but what about the court? The Court's got the ruling scepter, after all, and the law's the law. Who are we to question? Never mind the denials, we're in un-falsifiable claims now, so it's only a smokescreen.

[Mehrunes]

Presented without context, for anyone who thinks the 'Brood mares' stuff is just hyperbole.

The deranged minds of Republicans are truly a sight to behold. It's like an uncharted toxic wasteland of human depravity, always with a new fucked up surprise.

She’s old enough to be in menopause. She’s not even worried about getting pregnant anymore.

She does have four daughters though. Three of whom are of "domestic supply of infants" age. She should volunteer them as the progenitors of this broodmare program. The market demands it, after all.