SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Elenos]

When it comes to your views on abortion.

I hold on a personal level that having an abortion is deeply immoral and selfish, also it has a health impact on the woman. However I do stand quite firmly on the view that it should be legal. You can't force morality through legal power.

My view on sex in general is that people should a lot more responsible then they are today. Condoms and Contraceptives are cheap after all. I absolutely understand it's a heck a lot more comfortable without a plastic sock, believe me I do, but it's not an excuse.

I will say this however: The poor people excuse I hear a lot of, including from people like Pelosi, should mean zilch.

[Fugus]

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

No, they don't have the authority to declare a fetus as a person. And if they tried that would be a can of worms they would never hear the end of where having sex with your pregnant wife would considered exposing yourself to a child and so on.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

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.

Yeah, but even so...A lot of these pro-lifers are also against Men being "forced" to pay child support

[Lenonis]

Yup. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc...-birth-control

I really wonder what the endgame here is. What the heck are these states going to do with the surge in teen pregnancies and huge number of babies dropped off at fire stations? They really think this is a winning issue in the long run?

[Slybak]

I'm desperately looking for silver linings.

There are already vast swathes of the country that have effectively banned abortion within their jurisdictions through TRAP laws, which were designed and implemented to be covert acts of sabotage that, if you squinted hard, withstood the undue burden precedent set by Casey. Almost 90% of all US counties do not have an abortion provider. There are 18 states where 95% or more counties do not have an abortion provider. This creates a situation for many Americans where getting an abortion requires a prohibitive amount of travel.

This will of course get worse, because in those same 18 states (at least) the number will climb to 100%. But, unlike with TRAP laws, this is an explicit and spectacalized fashion of accomplishing that goal so there will be more organized means of redress. There will be more groups whose major mission is to provide transport to safe states from unsafe ones. There will be added pressure on employers to provide for employees who need money and time off to travel those distances.

[Nurasu]

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

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Sorry, I was referring to the Supreme Court. They could decide the Constitution applies to all 'persons' at conception. Theoretically.

[Rasulis]

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.

That would be a tough law to prosecute. Gambling is illegal in Texas. Yet, Texans that go to Las Vegas to gamble are not prosecuted. Also, current Texas anti-abortion laws explicitly exclude women that had abortion from criminal prosecution. For now at least.

[Lenonis]

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

Except they can't. Not without striking down the full faith and credit clause. The best they can do would be to say a state doesn't have to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples themselves.

[Nurasu]

No, they don't have the authority to declare a fetus as a person. And if they tried that would be a can of worms they would never hear the end of where having sex with your pregnant wife would considered exposing yourself to a child and so on.

We already grant different legal rights to citizens based on age.

[Fugus]

I hold on a personal level that having an abortion is deeply immoral and selfish, also it has a health impact on the woman. However I do stand quite firmly on the view that it should be legal. You can't force morality through legal power.

My view on sex in general is that people should a lot more responsible then they are today. Condoms and Contraceptives are cheap after all. I absolutely understand it's a heck a lot more comfortable without a plastic sock, believe me I do, but I don't view that as an excuse in any way.

Wasn't really talking about the personal morality view but could debate that on another thread. I was talking about which do you view to be the soul? And how would an abortion of a cluster of cells with no soul be murder any more than unplugging a brain dead relative on life support?

[Lenonis]

Sorry, I was referring to the Supreme Court. They could decide the Constitution applies to all 'persons' at conception. Theoretically.

I mean sure. But they won't. Because the legal nightmare it would create would be out of this world.

Women must be charged with manslaughter for miscarriages.
Any sort of fertility treatment would be outlawed.
All sort of issues with what women do before they even know they are pregnant.
Additional issues around diseases that affect fetal development.
How drugs are tested in pregnant women would have to change. In ways that are impossible to implement.
The entire tax code would need to be reworked.

[SavoirFaire]

I really wonder what the endgame here is. What the heck are these states going to do with the surge in teen pregnancies and huge number of babies dropped off at fire stations? They really think this is a winning issue in the long run?

Endgame is to run “blue” voters out of state.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

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

This whole "Ok, so they went after abortion...but that doesn't mean they'll be coming for Gay Marriage et al next" position you've taken really stinks of this:

“In Germany they came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up
because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left
to speak up for me.”

― Martin Niemöller

[Darththeo]

Except they can't. Not without striking down the full faith and credit clause. The best they can do would be to say a state doesn't have to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples themselves.

You have far too much faith in them to behave logically when they have already shown they don't care.

[jonnysensible]

Endgame is to run “blue” voters out of state.

US Balkanization sure that will go well

[Rasulis]

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who emerged Friday as the Supreme Court’s pivotal vote on abortion, said states outlawing the procedure may not bar residents from traveling to other states to terminate their pregnancies.

“May a state bar a resident of that state from traveling to another state to obtain an abortion?” he wrote in a concurring opinion. “In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.”

Kavanaugh also said he didn’t believe a state could constitutionally impose liability or punishment for an abortion that took place before the court’s ruling Friday. He said that practice would violate either the Constitution’s due process clause or the ex post facto clause, which bars retroactive punishment.

He said those types of abortion-related legal questions “are not especially difficult as a constitutional matter.”

Kavanaugh’s vote is key because he joined with other conservative justices in the 5-4 ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established abortion as a nationwide right. Without him, the court wouldn’t have a majority to uphold a law outlawing travel or one imposing retroactive punishment.

It seems pretty clear for now.

[Smitzelplix]

I hold on a personal level that having an abortion is deeply immoral and selfish, also it has a health impact on the woman. However I do stand quite firmly on the view that it should be legal. You can't force morality through legal power.

My view on sex in general is that people should a lot more responsible then they are today. Condoms and Contraceptives are cheap after all. I absolutely understand it's a heck a lot more comfortable without a plastic sock, believe me I do, but it's not an excuse.

I will say this however: The poor people excuse I hear a lot of, including from people like Pelosi, should mean zilch.

You talk about contraceptives, but that is most likely going to be one of the things Republicans go after next.

Clarence Thomas is already saying that contraception, same sex relationships, and same sex marriage should be reconsidered.

https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1540338064324698112

[Lenonis]

This whole "Ok, so they went after abortion...but that doesn't mean they'll be coming for Gay Marriage et al next" position you've taken really stinks of this:

...did you just really Godwin me?

Do you want to go back and read my reasons for why I've taken this stance or just throw out Nazi references?

- - - Updated - - -

You have far too much faith in them to behave logically when they have already shown they don't care.

*shrug* Perhaps. But I'm also running under the assumption they are aware of how such a ruling could backfire for conservatives. I've acknowledged several times I could be wrong about this but i don't think I am. I don't think the political will is the same, nor the issue so easily decided as Roe v Wade.

Time will tell who is right.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

...did you just really Godwin me?

Do you want to go back and read my reasons for why I've taken this stance or just throw out Nazi references?

I didn't say you were a nazi.

The whole point of the quote is that people that weren't nazis were standing by idly because the nazis weren't, at that moment, targetting them.

[Lenonis]

It seems pretty clear for now.

Things like this are why although it's clear SCOTUS has lurched to the right I don't believe they are just going to throw the constitution out of the window. And this actually supports my argument on the gay marriage front.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't say you were a nazi.

The whole point of the quote is that people that weren't nazis were standing by idly because the nazis weren't, at that moment, targetting them.

Did I say we should stand idle?

I mean...you didn't think I'd take offense to being compared to a nazi apologist?

Do better.