SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Jastall]

The memo merely lays bare the plan than everyone could see; the agenda is in motion. This court's objective is to bring America back to the Civil Rights era. Homosexuals are next on the chopping block, trans rights will become a meme, and while I'm not certain of it I wouldn't be overly surprised if they start looking funny at Brown v. Board of Education if they don't face resistance.

Such is the price of a heavily politicized SCOTUS. I'm really hoping this bullshit doesn't make wave in my neck of the woods up north but not too optimistic.

[Mihalik]

"Whether marriage or intercourse between a white woman and a black man is legal or not is a states rights issue!"

This Supreme Court, soon.

[Nurasu]

"Whether marriage or intercourse between a white woman and a black man is legal or not is a states rights issue!"

This Supreme Court, soon.

I'd vote that way if I were married to Ginny.

[Edge-]

"Whether marriage or intercourse between a white woman and a black man is legal or not is a states rights issue!"

This Supreme Court, soon.

The SCOTUS must protect us from the "GREAT REPLACEMENT" by allowing states to outlaw miscegenation. Totes not super racist at all!

- - - Updated - - -

The opinion noted that "a woman who puts her newborn up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home."

In which the SCOTUS ignores the problems within our adoption system, including states allowing adoption agencies to refuse prospective parents because they LGBTQ+ etc.

Which still ignores the whole "womens right to bodily autonomy" and all, but whatever. We know Republicans and conservatives largely view women as breeding chattel for "alpha" males. They should stay where they belong, apparently, which is barefoot in the kitchen and pregnant.

[Nurasu]

The SCOTUS must protect us from the "GREAT REPLACEMENT" by allowing states to outlaw miscegenation. Totes not super racist at all!

- - - Updated - - -



In which the SCOTUS ignores the problems within our adoption system, including states allowing adoption agencies to refuse prospective parents because they LGBTQ+ etc.

Which still ignores the whole "womens right to bodily autonomy" and all, but whatever. We know Republicans and conservatives largely view women as breeding chattel for "alpha" males. They should stay where they belong, apparently, which is barefoot in the kitchen and pregnant.

You say women, but many of these states have laws to make sure their girls are able to be proper kitchen broods.

[Edge-]

You say women, but many of these states have laws to make sure their girls are able to be proper kitchen broods.

True, they don't think a 13 year old is adult enough to make her own decisions, but is adult enough to bear the responsibility of raising a child.

Weird how none of the conservative "logic" actually makes any sense.

[Poopymonster]

You say women, but many of these states have laws to make sure their girls are able to be proper kitchen broods.

Silver lining: At least the Wifi reaches the kitchen.
/s

[Paranoid Android]

Reuters: Amazon has told staff it will pay up to $4,000 in travel expenses annually for non-life threatening medical treatments including abortions.

Cheaper for companies to give money for a woman's right then closing/moving their business out of state that hurts profits. The anti-choice states of course somehow always favor pro business laws that doesn't benefit the living standard of the employees. You know pro-life.

[Fugus]

I couldn't give a damn about Clinton. I described all voters, not just trump ones. Remember how the "Bernie boys" repeatedly said they would never vote for Hilary?

It's just stupidness and in my mind evidence that the vast majority of people just shouldn't be able to vote. There should be some sort of competency test one must take each election cycle before voting or something because the reasons I have read that ppl chose to vote over for the past 5-6 years are just downright embarrassing, and hardly ever were over the actual policy issues or legislation

Part of me wouldn’t mind that means test till you actually think about it and realize the people who would be in charge of setting that criteria for it.

You would end up in a situation where an education would disqualify you from it unless you were above an obscene income bracket while people who could barely spell their own name but can repeat verses from the Bible would have zero issues.

Remember, in Texas JimBob Hodunk who doesn’t know life outside of his Deer stand can use his hunting ID to vote while Tyler from college learning critical thinking and how things work can’t use his college ID and has extra hoops and they even try and make sure he polling station isn’t anywhere near his college. And how if you are in a minority area there you might be stuck driving up to 3 counties over just to get that ID if you can make it within whatever business hours they have.

- - - Updated - - -

True, they don't think a 13 year old is adult enough to make her own decisions, but is adult enough to bear the responsibility of raising a child.

Weird how none of the conservative "logic" actually makes any sense.

You are giving them too much credit on here. If I remember correctly in 2014 Alabama even issued a marriage license between a 65 year old man and a 12 year old girl.

And under the law the guy could do whatever he wanted to her so long as it wasn’t recorded.

- - - Updated - - -

Reuters: Amazon has told staff it will pay up to $4,000 in travel expenses annually for non-life threatening medical treatments including abortions.

Cheaper for companies to give money for a woman's right then closing/moving their business out of state that hurts profits. The anti-choice states of course somehow always favor pro business laws that doesn't benefit the living standard of the employees. You know pro-life.

They are getting to the point even Amazon is saying they can’t treat their workers that bad….

Wonder how long it goes before it impacts our military readiness and they start having to move them in response.

[Aphelios]

So does outlawing abortion prevent abortion?

[Edge-]

Reuters: Amazon has told staff it will pay up to $4,000 in travel expenses annually for non-life threatening medical treatments including abortions.

Cheaper for companies to give money for a woman's right then closing/moving their business out of state that hurts profits. The anti-choice states of course somehow always favor pro business laws that doesn't benefit the living standard of the employees. You know pro-life.

Apparently this only covers "valuable" workers in-house. Not folks like warehouse workers/drivers.

[Nurasu]

So does outlawing abortion prevent abortion?

Yes; if they die from one, they won't be able to get any more. That's really the only explanation I can come up with.

[cubby]

You live in a fundamentally democratic system, meaning that "mob rule" is one of your core defining principles.

And regardless, what you're describing takes the entire concept of "justice" and removes it wholesale from the judicial process. I don't see how that's remotely tenable. Justices pushing unjust decisions is not going to survive a public who won't accept those decisions, just as a matter of practicality.

Brown v. Board might have been a contentious decision, but there was a pretty significant groundswell of support for that decision, too. Or it never would've happened.

This is especially relevant here because this ruling appears even legalistically improper, not just a travesty of justice on principle. Lack of transparency in situations like this serves no one but bad-faith actors who know their horseshit won't survive public scrutiny.

It certainly is predominantly democratic, but remember we are also a voting Republic. Citizens don't typically vote for any federal laws, and few state/local ones (I know you know this).

The unjustness of the decision, for me at least in this sub-conversation on thread topic, isn't the issue. It's the violation of the processes, for nefarious purporses, that I am getting at here.

The overall issue, the assault on women and poor (and for those that don't know/understand why anti-abortion laws are assaults on the poor, speak up, I'll explain) stemming from this upcoming ruling and other GQP delights, is horrific - and I've made my position very clear.

We in the United States are at a crossroads few truly understand, and when we cross over, as we seem to be about to, there might not be a way to turn back.

[Edge-]

So does outlawing abortion prevent abortion?

#MakeBackAlleyAbortionsGreatAgain

It doesn't quite roll off the tongue, so I don't think Republicans will run with that as their platform.

[Draco-Onis]

And for the most part I agree with you. We should have as much transparency in government as possible.

But internal draft legal opinions from SCOTUS aren't one of them.

I think it's somewhat interesting that aside from the usual douchebag (Ted Cruz, Graham), republicans aren't taking a victory lap on this even Fox news is focusing on the leak. However given the nature of this leak any investigation in this will be partisan.

- - - Updated - - -

We in the United States are at a crossroads few truly understand, and when we cross over, as we seem to be about to, there might not be a way to turn back.

We crossed that bridge on 1/6 and the lack of consequences of it there is no turning back.

[Rasulis]

Reuters: Amazon has told staff it will pay up to $4,000 in travel expenses annually for non-life threatening medical treatments including abortions.

Cheaper for companies to give money for a woman's right then closing/moving their business out of state that hurts profits. The anti-choice states of course somehow always favor pro business laws that doesn't benefit the living standard of the employees. You know pro-life.

Republicans call to cancel Senate’s Citibank contract over ‘abortion tourism’

Several Senate Republicans called Friday for dropping Citibank as the Senate’s credit-card provider, citing the company’s decision to pay for employees to travel out of state to obtain abortions.

Sen. Steve Daines, Montana Republican who chairs the Senate Pro-Life Caucus, led a letter asking Sergeant-at-Arms Karen Gibson to “immediately terminate the U.S. Senate’s existing contracts with Citi and refrain from entering into any new contractual agreements with Citi.”

“Citi’s decision to finance abortion tourism for its employees, in brazen circumvention of state law, shows a reckless disregard for the lives of preborn children and disdain for the will of the people of the states in which Citi acts as an employer,” said the letter.

Citigroup, the nation’s fourth-largest bank, unveiled the policy in a March 15 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

“In response to changes in reproductive health care laws in certain states in the U.S., beginning in 2022 we provide travel benefits to facilitate access to adequate resources,” said the filing.

This will be a major contention issue between anti-abortion states and many companies with offices in their states. Apple has the same policy on abortion as Amazon and it pretty much has offices in every single US states. Even Dell which has a TX headquarter has the same abortion policy.

Short list from a quick search of companies with expanded abortion benefits - Apple, Amazon, Citigroup, HP, Levi's, Match, Dell, Yelp, Salesforce, Uber, Lyft, GoDaddy, Bumble, etc.

Uber and Lyft said they would work with healthcare providers in Texas and Oklahoma to offer free rides to clients seeking out-of-state reproductive healthcare. They have also pledged to pay the legal fees of any drivers fined for transporting a customer to an out-of-state abortion clinic in both states.

[Endus]

It certainly is predominantly democratic, but remember we are also a voting Republic.

That's not a counterpoint.

Citizens don't typically vote for any federal laws, and few state/local ones (I know you know this).

Irrelevant; people vote directly for the representatives who do so. This is deflection I expect from Republicans, not people like you.

The unjustness of the decision, for me at least in this sub-conversation on thread topic, isn't the issue. It's the violation of the processes, for nefarious purporses, that I am getting at here.

Said "nefarious purposes" are in no way demonstrated at this point, and I disagree that such outcomes are even likely. I'm a firm believer that there needs to be federal whistleblower protections in place for all whistleblowers; if truth and transparency won't win out, then everything's already super-fucked and it isn't the truth being exposed that's actually causing any of the problems that result.

[Aphelios]

Okay did people just wake up and decide to go to Home Depot and buy a bucket of glue then start huffing it?

[eschatological]

It certainly is predominantly democratic, but remember we are also a voting Republic. Citizens don't typically vote for any federal laws, and few state/local ones (I know you know this).

The unjustness of the decision, for me at least in this sub-conversation on thread topic, isn't the issue. It's the violation of the processes, for nefarious purporses, that I am getting at here. .

Violation of process is fundamental to justice, if the process denies justice. That's like, 90% of Martin Luther King's message. It's been the rallying cry for Civil Rights for 60 years. What the ever-living fuck are you even talking about?

Legal positivism, where the process determines a law's justness (IE, if reps are duly elected and pass a law according to our law-making process) let us come to the Dred Scott decision, which upheld that black people were property. Because everything before that demanded that black people weren't human.

Brown v. Board of Education was a radical departure for SCOTUS, and is taught in law schools for this reason: it threw away all precedent saying that "separate but equal" was good enough, and simply said "No. This isn't equal." Fundamental to our democracy is the idea of a natural law - a law that exists outside of our judicial process. It is enshrined in the Declaration, which says we are endowed with inalienable rights. Those rights are then further enshrined in the 14th Amendment, when it says those same inalienable rights cannot be abrogated without due process of law. Then, a century and a half of law came to the conclusion that that same "due process" had to survive strict scrutiny, the highest judicial process, before it could consider violating those rights.

Like, your appeal to process is fundamentally unjust, and carries water for those who would seek to enshrine injustice with the imprimatur of legality, which, in their mind, equals justice and morality.

[cubby]

That's not a counterpoint.

Irrelevant; people vote directly for the representatives who do so. This is deflection I expect from Republicans, not people like you.

It's not irrelevant. We aren't what you say we are. And you should take that argument seriously, considering it's me and NOT a GQP'er. We don't have mob rule because we are fundamentally, and more precisely mechanically, a Republic Democracy.

Said "nefarious purposes" are in no way demonstrated at this point, and I disagree that such outcomes are even likely. I'm a firm believer that there needs to be federal whistleblower protections in place for all whistleblowers; if truth and transparency won't win out, then everything's already super-fucked and it isn't the truth being exposed that's actually causing any of the problems that result.

I am too. This isn't the place for it. You're essentially asking for the Justices to live stream their thought process as they are developing their opinion on a ruling. That's not transparency.

- - - Updated - - -

Violation of process is fundamental to justice, if the process denies justice. That's like, 90% of Martin Luther King's message. It's been the rallying cry for Civil Rights for 60 years. What the ever-living fuck are you even talking about?

Legal positivism, where the process determines a law's justness (IE, if reps are duly elected and pass a law according to our law-making process) let us come to the Dred Scott decision, which upheld that black people were property. Because everything before that demanded that black people weren't human.

Brown v. Board of Education was a radical departure for SCOTUS, and is taught in law schools for this reason: it threw away all precedent saying that "separate but equal" was good enough, and simply said "No. This isn't equal." Fundamental to our democracy is the idea of a natural law - a law that exists outside of our judicial process. It is enshrined in the Declaration, which says we are endowed with inalienable rights. Those rights are then further enshrined in the 14th Amendment, when it says those same inalienable rights cannot be abrogated without due process of law. Then, a century and a half of law came to the conclusion that that same "due process" had to survive strict scrutiny, the highest judicial process, before it could consider violating those rights.

Like, your appeal to process is fundamentally unjust, and carries water for those who would seek to enshrine injustice with the imprimatur of legality, which, in their mind, equals justice and morality.

I agree with most of what you're saying here.

But this violation of process doesn't accomplish anything and can't/shouldn't change anything. That's been my only point.

My appeal to process is so that mob rule doesn't influence judicial decisions, good or bad.