SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Fugus]

I've seen a lot of people say that Roe v. Wade is based on shaky legal foundation. Is that correct?

Before people jump on me for asking, I am pro choice, I just see that argument a lot and want to know what merit that has.

My understanding is that it didn’t directly address abortion but addressed it in an indirect and backhanded way to avoid offending bigots and other such bitches.

My understanding is it basically just says that what is between someone and their doctor is private and the government is to stay out of it.

Comes at it from a privacy perspective and just bypasses the meat of the issue entirely.

[Edge-]

I dunno, the mere fact of the physical necessity of a mother not only for life but perpetuation of the human species puts this in a singular category not well covered by legal precedent in other areas. It’s a unique issue in law in my opinion.

In which you think that women, being important to the continuation of the human species, apparently are a "special case" when it comes to if they deserve the same bodily autonomy men do.

Man, I love when folks just like, out themselves.

[Darththeo]

It was shaky because the Court at the time didn't build the foundation up as much as they could have. The Court left it to "the right to privacy" when they should have done that, and then also build up a separate foundation of a right to healthcare, AND then build up a third pillar of a right to determine your own bodies decisions.

But they didn't.

What are the words to O' Canada again?

I understand that, as I said if shaky means weak than I agree. They didn't bother a direct address of the issue.

And if I could, I would relocate to Canada myself, but my job is pretty stuck in my state and I really don't want to have to look for a new one right now.

[Adam Jensen]

Is it just me or does Alito's argument make no sense.

"We have had a culture of keeping abortion illegal in our common law since the beginning" was essentially his argument (I'm paraphrasing greatly but I don't think I changed the meaning of what he said.)

When I read that, I was like, we also had a culture of slavery in our common law since the beginning. A law being old and consistent doesn't mean it's a good law.

- - - Updated - - -

In which you think that women, being important to the continuation of the human species, apparently are a "special case" when it comes to if they deserve the same bodily autonomy men do.

Man, I love when folks just like, out themselves.

I don't know why people put so much emphasis on the continuation of the human species. Giving women freedom isn't going to make them stop having sex or bearing children, it simply gives them the ability to choose when and if they do such things, and with whom.

Women are not brood mares.

[Edge-]

Is it just me or does Alito's argument make no sense.

It doesn't.

"We have had a culture of keeping abortion illegal in our common law since the beginning" was essentially his argument (I'm paraphrasing greatly but I don't think I changed the meaning of what he said.)

Yes, regressives often appeal to history/tradition as if there's any weight within that appeal. It's largely when regressives don't want to just outright say, "Well women and those darkies need to know their god-damned place." because they know they'll get in trouble for that.

- - - Updated - - -

Women are not brood mares.

To that crowd, that's the problem.

[Kathandira]

It doesn't.



Yes, regressives often appeal to history/tradition as if there's any weight within that appeal. It's largely when regressives don't want to just outright say, "Well women and those darkies need to know their god-damned place." because they know they'll get in trouble for that.

- - - Updated - - -



To that crowd, that's the problem.

I think that should be a thing. There are Progressives and Regressives. We shouldn’t call them conservatives anymore.

[Flarelaine]

a rumor I heard was that ROb erts wanted a more tailored opinion because this, as is, is so broad that it risks ruining the US privacy rights. Would be interesting to see if he uses that to convince on of the other 5 to curtail the opinion, in which case this is a good thing ebcause the pressure is coming from inside the house itself.

Funny thing, Roberts was my first thought when I wondered who could have leaked. Can't explain why other than he seems to want to rein them in to some extent.

[Fugus]

Funny thing, Roberts was my first thought when I wondered who could have leaked. Can't explain why other than he seems to want to rein them in to some extent.

If I had to guess, he might know the harder the push, the bigger the push to replace them or expand the courts become and the bigger the push to replace conservatives in office become.

And the moment that happens, all of this gets reversed in quick order. They know they aren’t popular and the only way it sticks is if it stays on the books long enough for people to forget about before it.

[Flarelaine]

Is this really where we're at right now? Are you people seriously okay with this?

They're not okay with it. They're happy with it.

[Darththeo]

Matt Gaetz is showing how out of touch he isn't asking how many women against Roe overturning are "overeducated" and "underloved."

Ignoring when the fight for abortion happened.

[Rasulis]

Is it just me or does Alito's argument make no sense.

"We have had a culture of keeping abortion illegal in our common law since the beginning" was essentially his argument (I'm paraphrasing greatly but I don't think I changed the meaning of what he said.)

When I read that, I was like, we also had a culture of slavery in our common law since the beginning. A law being old and consistent doesn't mean it's a good law.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't know why people put so much emphasis on the continuation of the human species. Giving women freedom isn't going to make them stop having sex or bearing children, it simply gives them the ability to choose when and if they do such things, and with whom.

Women are not brood mares.

Alito was wrong. Abortion was legal in the US till 1847. In 1847, doctors banded together to form the AMA. AMA wanted to have the power to decide when an abortion could be legally performed. Reproductive health care workers, like midwives and nurses, and the obstetric services they provided were phased out. By 1880, all states had laws to restrict abortion — with exceptions in some states if a doctor said the abortion was needed to save the life or health of the patient, or for therapeutic reasons. The stigma against abortion in the US started then. The irony is that the vast majority of AMA members now support abortion right.

[Flarelaine]

The Republican Party has not won a popular vote since 2004

Yes because we are a republic and not a democracy.

More people choose Democrats than Republicans... because you're a republic and not a democracy? That's some spectacular mental gymnastics there.

[Edge-]

Matt Gaetz is showing how out of touch he isn't asking how many women against Roe overturning are "overeducated" and "underloved."

Ignoring when the fight for abortion happened.

No, he wants to be in touch with them. Just with girls of the appropriate education level, preferably no higher than highschool education or else they're probably too old.

- - - Updated - - -

To be fair, neither party actually cares about the poor.

While there's a kernel of truth here...that ain't true at all, but is' not surprising that conservative leaning folks still seem either unable to actually exist in reality or are fully convinced by their own lies.

[Darththeo]

I'm sure the old white guys would love that.

There is no law that was violated, just procedure.

I want an explanation why a procedure violation is more important than what the government is doing.

[Adam Jensen]

More people choose Democrats than Republicans... because you're a republic and not a democracy? That's some spectacular mental gymnastics there.

God that argument pisses me off.

A republic is a type of democracy, therefore we're a democracy. Furthermore, a democracy vs a republic has nothing to do with Democrats vs Republicans.

[Edge-]

There is no law that was violated, just procedure.

I want an explanation why a procedure violation is more important than what the government is doing.

The government is doing nothing. The SCOTUS, with activist Justices, is about to overturn decades of "settled law" and open a Pandora's Box of hell for people living in Republican states.

[Darththeo]

No, he wants to be in touch with them. Just with girls of the appropriate education level, preferably no higher than highschool education or else they're probably too old.

Well, he doesn't think those women are pro-choice.

- - - Updated - - -

The government is doing nothing. The SCOTUS, with activist Justices, is about to overturn decades of "settled law" and open a Pandora's Box of hell for people living in Republican states.

Unfortunately, the SCOTUS doing this is part of the government.

[Breccia]

I want an explanation why a procedure violation is more important than what the government is doing.

Old news at this point. "How DARE you find out about all that stuff I did?" is damn near the RNC slogan.

[Darththeo]

What SCOTUS are doing is something they wholeheartedly agree with, of course they're not going to actually care about that and will wants to shift focus elsewhere.

Yeah.

However, if the rolls were reversed and the court was going to make a ruling they don't like, they'll call for an investigation of the court and claim that the leaker is a hero.

- - - Updated - - -

Old news at this point. "How DARE you find out about all that stuff I did?" is damn near the RNC slogan.

I know, I still want an explanation to it. If they can't give one, that will be telling to some of the less koolaid drenched sheep of theirs.

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/s...31947546370048

Y'all, no need for an investigation. The galaxy brains at Newsmax know the source: Recently confirmed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Small problem in that, despite her confirmation recently, she's not yet appointed to the Court as Breyer still exists and remains in that seat. So despite not being a member of the court and not having access to anything as a result, they think she has access to early decisions from months before she was even confirmed.

Fucking mouthbreathers need to close their mouths already, and if they suffocate because they can't figure out how to breathe through their nostrils like everyone else well...natural selection, baybee.