SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[DarkTZeratul]

Dog catches car. Confused on what to do next.

I did see an opinion piece last year speculating that Roe v. Wade getting overturned would backfire spectacularly on Conservatives. Wonder if we'll actually see that to some degree come November.

[Bakis]

some parts of me just want the Bible to be banned.

Dont worry, its inevitable that people will lose interest in magical men (always men) in the sky.

[Shadowferal]

Dont worry, its inevitable that people will lose interest in magical men (always men) in the sky.

Certain intellectuals thought that in the 19th century.

[Endus]

I completely forgot these laws they want are entirely selective.

It's so fucking telling that he thinks there's an "issue of marriage". His "issue" is that people he's a hatemongering bigot about might get married, and he wants to harass and subjugate those people by denying them a basic human right. Because he's a fucking bigot.

That's the "issue". There's no more depth or nuance to it. That's Graham's entire argument, and anything else he uses is bafflegab to avoid admitting that he's a terrible, abusive, hateful person.

[cubby]

Relating to religious views taking over our laws:

The nation's largest drugstore chains allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense birth control if doing so conflicts with their religious or moral beliefs.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires companies to accommodate workers' religious beliefs as long as the request doesn't create an "undue hardship" on an employer. Just how far employers must go is open to debate – but the Supreme Court has repeatedly signaled an interest in expanding religious rights, not limiting them.

CVS Pharmacy told USA TODAY last week that it has a policy similar to one adopted by competitor Walgreens, allowing pharmacists to refuse prescriptions for birth control or decline to sell condoms. Those policies have sparked outrage on the left and a flurry of viral social media posts. But the companies, experts say, appear to be doing what the law requires.

The Supreme Court should rule on this shortly. And send the U.S. further into the Dark Ages.

Under His Eye.

- - - Updated - - -

It's so fucking telling that he thinks there's an "issue of marriage". His "issue" is that people he's a hatemongering bigot about might get married, and he wants to harass and subjugate those people by denying them a basic human right. Because he's a fucking bigot.

That's the "issue". There's no more depth or nuance to it. That's Graham's entire argument, and anything else he uses is bafflegab to avoid admitting that he's a terrible, abusive, hateful person.

And worse, if that's even possible, we have Thomas, who openly questioned gay married in his Dobbs opinion (case the overturned Roe v Wade), even though the ruling relies on the Loving case, which legalized interracial marriage.

Thomas is a black man married to a white woman. His marriage in interracial. Thomas is also on record as saying, shortly before he was appointed to SCOTUS (or shortly after - I don't recall the exact timing), that he was going to "make the Liberals suffer for the next 43 years, just like they made me suffer for the past 43 years".

I'm not sure what it would take, at this point, to turn the tide.

SCOTUS is locked in 6-3 conservative for at least the next decade. The oldest Justices are both of liberal persuasion, with Breyer being the oldest at 82. So appointing new judges to replace retiring conservatives is out.

The House is about to flip to GQP control - and they will spend their entire time Impeaching Biden. I would not be surprised if they go for at least three separate Impeachments, just to exceed Trump's number.

The Senate might actually hold in 2022, but I doubt it. Regardless, legislation will be stagnated and/or completely halted.

2024 will be interesting, only in the sense of which way the country slides - further towards the darkness or back into the light.

[gondrin]

It's so fucking telling that he thinks there's an "issue of marriage". His "issue" is that people he's a hatemongering bigot about might get married, and he wants to harass and subjugate those people by denying them a basic human right. Because he's a fucking bigot.

That's the "issue". There's no more depth or nuance to it. That's Graham's entire argument, and anything else he uses is bafflegab to avoid admitting that he's a terrible, abusive, hateful person.

Honestly, someone should ask them "Why should the government, whether it is local, state or federal, be able to determine who should be able to get married as long as they are of age of consent?" and follow up that with "Why are you for big government for things you hate but small government for things you like Senator?" and do this each time they interview them.

[Endus]

Honestly, someone should ask them "Why should the government, whether it is local, state or federal, be able to determine who should be able to get married as long as they are of age of consent?" and follow up that with "Why are you for big government for things you hate but small government for things you like Senator?" and do this each time they interview them.

They'll respond to that first question with Christofascist (speaking specifically of these extremists, not Christians generally) nonsense like how "marriage is Christian" or whatever, even though marriage wasn't a religious sacrament and in no way under Christian control before about 1200 CE, and that there's plenty of non-Christians who get married all the time.

They're engaged in a power grab, trying to subjugate the USA into a Christian fascist hellscape. See Boebert's recent comments about how religion (hers, specifically) should dictate how government works.

[Edge-]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tim-s...gn=us_politics

In which, again Republicans, specifically Republican men, make it clear that Republican men should have no say in laws relating to the bodies of girls and women. Why? Because they honestly, genuinely don't understand them -

“If we don’t take back the Senate, Dems will pack the courts, give DC statehood, grant abortions up to 52 weeks, and Republicans will never win again,” he wrote to supporters Monday.

52 weeks is...a bit odd, yeah? I mean, that's 12 months, a full year. And I think anyone who has ever been around someone who is pregnant throughout the duration of the pregnancy can confirm that they do not last 12 months. Especially you know, girls and women who personally experience it.

How long is it actually, according to an actual medical professional?

“A full-term pregnancy is approximately 40 weeks,” Dr. Meera Shah, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic, told HuffPost. “It is not logical or medically accurate to say that people can be pregnant at 52 weeks ― let alone be seeking an abortion. It is comments like this one that underscore exactly why medical decisions should not be made by politicians.”

Just a reminder, again, that Republicans keep trying to regulate an issue that they repeatedly, and publicly show they know nothing about in the slightest.

[s_bushido]

Just a reminder, again, that Republicans keep trying to regulate an issue that they repeatedly, and publicly show they know nothing about in the slightest.

Assuming it isn't just abject stupidity, I wouldn't be surprised if it was just to push the narrative that cropped up a few years ago that "Democrats want to abort babies even after they're born!" I think it had something to do with comments from a Dem politician from one of the Virginias about doctors and the family making medical decisions about babies born with terminal illnesses and/or little chance of survival.

[Edge-]

Assuming it isn't just abject stupidity, I wouldn't be surprised if it was just to push the narrative that cropped up a few years ago that "Democrats want to abort babies even after they're born!" I think it had something to do with comments from a Dem politician from one of the Virginias about doctors and the family making medical decisions about babies born with terminal illnesses and/or little chance of survival.

Which is also known as "not an abortion" because that's murder, infanticide at that.

This is big, "It's not an abortion if a 10 year old girl is impregnated by rape and the pregnancy is terminated." energy of that lying piece of shit who also argued that DC electricity was powered by burning aborted fetuses - which if we're being objective is a HORRIBLY INEFFICIENT way of generating heat for electricity. Sure, theoretically peopl can be burned to generate electricity, but people are pretty big. Fetuses, notably, are not.

It very much continues to seem that Republican men simply don't even talk to women. Now Tim Scott is unmarried so maybe he's got an excuse to know nothing about pregnancy! He doesn't know any women to ask about it! He's never been a father and gone through the trials of pregnancy with his wife! But that sure seems like a reason to like...find a woman and ask, or better yet a doctor specializing in reproductive health. Or hell, any medical professional. As long as they don't believe that fuckin a demon will make you sterile.

[s_bushido]

or better yet a doctor specializing in reproductive health. Or hell, any medical professional. As long as they don't believe that fuckin a demon will make you sterile.

They only believe what medical professionals have to say when it's politically expedient (or when it's their own asses in the hospital getting pumped full of the best medicine taxpayer money can buy).

[Edge-]

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...inTexaslawsuit

More on all the things regressive conservative Republicans want to take away. Next up: ACA coverage for preventative care which has proven to have immense health benefits at lower cost.

Why? Religious furdom, apparently. Preventative care is against their religion because it can include birth control (which I thought wasn't under risk?) and HIV treatment because...I guess they want people with HIV to have it develop into AIDS?

[Muzjhath]

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...inTexaslawsuit

More on all the things regressive conservative Republicans want to take away. Next up: ACA coverage for preventative care which has proven to have immense health benefits at lower cost.

Why? Religious furdom, apparently. Preventative care is against their religion because it can include birth control (which I thought wasn't under risk?) and HIV treatment because...I guess they want people with HIV to have it develop into AIDS?

We all know HIV and AIDS show loose morals and thus those whom are deserving do not get it /s

[Marfrilau]

So recently I've had a discussion that if you are against abortions then if you are intellectually consistent then you should also be for forced blood donations and organ donations. However, their counter argument is that there is a vital difference between the two scenarios:

A person is not required to save a life (which is the result of organ donation), you don't get penalized if you don't save a random dying person on the street.

A person is required to not end a life (which is the result of abortion).

Is this a valid argument or is it just semantics?

[Twdft]

A person is required to not end a life (which is the result of abortion).

Is this a valid argument or is it just semantics?

As mental gymnastics go I'd rate this a solid 10/10

not end a life = equals very much to save the very same life

[fwc577]

A person is not required to save a life (which is the result of organ donation), you don't get penalized if you don't save a random dying person on the street.

A person is required to not end a life (which is the result of abortion).

Is this a valid argument or is it just semantics?

It's the floundering argument of a cuck who hasn't come to realize they're a shitstain of humanity.

If a person is required to not end a life, at the end of the day, that is between them and god.

If a person is not required to save a life, then they should not be advocating for abortion bans.

[Dezerte]

So recently I've had a discussion that if you are against abortions then if you are intellectually consistent then you should also be for forced blood donations and organ donations. However, their counter argument is that there is a vital difference between the two scenarios:

A person is not required to save a life (which is the result of organ donation), you don't get penalized if you don't save a random dying person on the street.

A person is required to not end a life (which is the result of abortion).

Is this a valid argument or is it just semantics?

I'd say it's mostly just semantics. And another problem with the argument is the definition of life.

[Marfrilau]

I'd say it's mostly just semantics. And another problem with the argument is the definition of life.

That was my initial thinking too but many countries actually have laws that reflect this reality. You don't get penalized if you don't save a random dying person on the street but you do get penalized if your actions leads to the end of life of someone. That doesn't mean that those laws are correct of course and for the sake of argument the personhood aspect of it is ignored. I just can't really think of a better argument than "that's just semantics". I'm having trouble with explaining why is it just semantics?

[Draco-Onis]

So recently I've had a discussion that if you are against abortions then if you are intellectually consistent then you should also be for forced blood donations and organ donations. However, their counter argument is that there is a vital difference between the two scenarios:

A person is not required to save a life (which is the result of organ donation), you don't get penalized if you don't save a random dying person on the street.

A person is required to not end a life (which is the result of abortion).

Is this a valid argument or is it just semantics?

Pure semantics because you are choosing to end a life by not saving one.

[gondrin]

So recently I've had a discussion that if you are against abortions then if you are intellectually consistent then you should also be for forced blood donations and organ donations. However, their counter argument is that there is a vital difference between the two scenarios:

A person is not required to save a life (which is the result of organ donation), you don't get penalized if you don't save a random dying person on the street.

A person is required to not end a life (which is the result of abortion).

Is this a valid argument or is it just semantics?

I think you go that backwards. A person is not required to help save a life or not required to end a life. However, they are also not required to sustain a life no matter what or who it is.

If we require people to sustain fetuses against their will, then I state that those who want to force it onto others must also be forced to donate organs to everyone and anyone who needs them and be forced to pay for all expenses out of their own pocket to care for said life since they are so worried about it until, at the minimum, of the age of 18. If it bankrupts or causes them pain and distress, so be it. Lets see who really is for saving lives when they are literally on the hook for everything to take care of said life.