SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Endus]

It cannot be emphasized enough that controlling women is the heart of the "pro-life" movement. I will allow that after 50-ish years of propaganda, there are many adherents that think it's about saving lives, but that isn't the glue that holds it together.

I've gone back and forth with tons of people in this very thread. I keep asking for deeper explanations for what they believe that would justify the pro-life movement. And without fail, every single person's arguments have boiled down to "I have religious views I want to force the entire population to abide by, because fuck you my religious views are the only correct ones", or "I don't think women deserve to have some basic human rights because they clearly primarily exist to produce offspring for men."

And generally, the latter's directly resulting from the former. But it's always, without exception, one or both of those two things. Every single pro-lifer falls into those categories, without a single exception. I've never had anyone rationally explain otherwise, not individually and not by pointing to some argument by a pro-lifer they feel makes the case for them.

I welcome anyone willing to make the effort themselves who thinks I'm being unfair, here. Do us all a favor, though, and be real sure your positions that would justify pro-life legislation (not personal choice; pro-life is about criminalizing abortion, not personal choice) don't carry any hint of the aforementioned religiosity or misogyny. A fully secular argument based on science and reason alone, and which does not deny women any of their human rights in a uniquely new way that would never be considered in any other circumstance.

[Milchshake]

Word is Alito and Thomas are desperate to retire and want Trump to pick their replacement.


SCOTUS on the ballot again, as ever.

[Edge-]

Word is Alito and Thomas are desperate to retire and want Trump to pick their replacement.

SCOTUS on the ballot again, as ever.

Don't get me excited. That would potentially reverse the court from a 6:3 to a 5:4 in the favor of "liberals" who don't weaponize the fuck outta the Shadow Docket and also don't routinely go back to cite lawmakers and alchemists in the 1600's for their reasoning and whatnot.

[DarkTZeratul]

I've gone back and forth with tons of people in this very thread. I keep asking for deeper explanations for what they believe that would justify the pro-life movement. And without fail, every single person's arguments have boiled down to "I have religious views I want to force the entire population to abide by, because fuck you my religious views are the only correct ones", or "I don't think women deserve to have some basic human rights because they clearly primarily exist to produce offspring for men."

Or the related but no less misogynistic, "I think women should be punished for having sex."

[cubby]

Or the related but no less misogynistic, "I think women should be punished for having sex."

"...with someone other than [me]."

[Gestopft]

Don't get me excited. That would potentially reverse the court from a 6:3 to a 5:4 in the favor of "liberals" who don't weaponize the fuck outta the Shadow Docket and also don't routinely go back to cite lawmakers and alchemists in the 1600's for their reasoning and whatnot.

They would only retire if Trump was elected, is the condition.

[Edge-]

They would only retire if Trump was elected, is the condition.

Oh I know. But could they tolerate working for another 4-8 years while waiting? I sure hope not.

[RampageBW1]

Word is Alito and Thomas are desperate to retire and want Trump to pick their replacement.


SCOTUS on the ballot again, as ever.

A real kick to (their) teeth would be America not electing a Republicunt President for at least another 12 years, forcing these assholes to either retire anyway and live with that decision, or do as other SCOTUS judges have done and died during their tenure as a SCOTUS judge.

Now I know that sounds bad, but honestly, so are corrupt assholes for judges hoping that a corrupt asshole gets elected as the POTUS so their replacements can also be corrupt assholes for judges.

[Sunseeker]

Oh I know. But could they tolerate working for another 4-8 years while waiting? I sure hope not.

Clarence Thomas will be on that bench if it means he has to come back and haunt it, if it means he gets to keep being a massive piece of shit. I dont know what precedent there may be for a ghost to hold a SCOTUS seat, but Im sure his cronies will somehow get it passed in some way that only magically applies to him.

[cubby]

Clarence Thomas will be on that bench if it means he has to come back and haunt it, if it means he gets to keep being a massive piece of shit. I dont know what precedent there may be for a ghost to hold a SCOTUS seat, but Im sure his cronies will somehow get it passed in some way that only magically applies to him.

Thomas would never willingly leave his spot open for a Democrat to fill. He is literally on record as saying "the Democrats [fucked] me for 41 years, I'm going to [fuck] them for 41 or more".

[Poopymonster]

Clarence Thomas will be on that bench if it means he has to come back and haunt it, if it means he gets to keep being a massive piece of shit. I dont know what precedent there may be for a ghost to hold a SCOTUS seat, but Im sure his cronies will somehow get it passed in some way that only magically applies to him.

I'm picturing Ginny Thomas, complete in blackface, trying to take his place. "It was in his will! Spousal Benefits!"
That or they "Weekend at Clarence's" him. They just put him through the baggage scanner for his financed trips to Facism Presents: Freedom Liberty Jesus Con, brought to you by Turning Point KKK.

[Locklen]

Thomas would never willingly leave his spot open for a Democrat to fill. He is literally on record as saying "the Democrats [fucked] me for 41 years, I'm going to [fuck] them for 41 or more".

sounds like a democratic president should use some supreme court approved "presidential authority" to remove him from office.

[Glorious Leader]

Don't get me excited. That would potentially reverse the court from a 6:3 to a 5:4 in the favor of "liberals" who don't weaponize the fuck outta the Shadow Docket and also don't routinely go back to cite lawmakers and alchemists in the 1600's for their reasoning and whatnot.

I wonder how long mconnel can withold a confirmation.

[Captain N]

I wonder how long mconnel can withold a confirmation.

Turtles live a long time.

[DarkTZeratul]

I wonder how long mconnel can withold a confirmation.

Not at all, since he's not currently in charge of the Senate and is also retiring at the end of the year.

[Lenonis]

I wonder how long mconnel can withold a confirmation.

McConnel is just a symptom of a deeper problem. If Harris wins the election but loses the Senate I have no doubt the GOP will find any and every reason to deny any SCOTUS nomination for as long as they control the Senate or until a Republican president is elected. They have no scruples and care only about power and they all are aware how powerful ideological control of that court is.

They've already hinted at shenanigans with this. The leader of the Senate doesn't matter, anyone who is picked to lead the GOP faction will get marching orders to deny any SCOTUS picks.

[Karreck]

Supreme Court Lets Stand a Decision Barring Emergency Abortions That Violate Texas Ban

https://time.com/7062260/supreme-cou...ncy-abortions/

WASHINGTON— The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a decision barring emergency abortions that violate the law in Texas, which has one of the country's strictest abortion bans.

Without detailing their reasoning, the justices kept in place a lower court order that said hospitals cannot be required to provide pregnancy terminations that would violate Texas law.

The Biden administration had asked the justices to throw out the lower court order, arguing that hospitals have to perform abortions in emergency situations under federal law. The administration pointed to the Supreme Court's action in a similar case from Idaho earlier this year in which the justices narrowly allowed emergency abortions to resume while a lawsuit continues.

The administration also cited a Texas Supreme Court ruling that said doctors do not have to wait until a woman’s life is in immediate danger to provide an abortion legally. The administration said it brings Texas in line with federal law and means the lower court ruling is not necessary.

Texas asked the justices to leave the order in place, saying the state Supreme Court ruling meant Texas law, unlike Idaho’s, does have an exception for the health of a pregnant patient and there's no conflict between federal and state law.

Doctors have said the law remains dangerously vague after a medical board refused to specify exactly which conditions qualify for the exception.

There has been a spike in complaints that pregnant women in medical distress have been turned away from emergency rooms in Texas and elsewhere as hospitals grapple with whether standard care could violate strict laws against abortion.

Pregnancy terminations have long been part of medical treatment for patients with serious complications, as way to to prevent sepsis, organ failure and other major problems. But in Texas and other states with strict abortion bans, doctors and hospitals have said it is not clear whether those terminations could run afoul of abortion bans that carry the possibility of prison time.

The Texas case started after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, leading to abortion restrictions in many Republican-controlled states. The Biden administration issued guidance saying hospitals still needed to provide abortions in emergency situations under a health care law that requires most hospitals to treat any patients in medical distress.

Texas sued over that guidance, arguing that hospitals cannot be required to provide abortions that would violate its ban. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court Appeals sided with the state, ruling in January that the administration had overstepped its authority.

Well look at that. The court that overturned Roe strikes again.

[Glorious Leader]

Supreme Court Lets Stand a Decision Barring Emergency Abortions That Violate Texas Ban

https://time.com/7062260/supreme-cou...ncy-abortions/



Well look at that. The court that overturned Roe strikes again.

Maybe im not reading this right but are they saying hospitals can refuse abortions because of legal liability even if the result is death?

[Edge-]

Supreme Court Lets Stand a Decision Barring Emergency Abortions That Violate Texas Ban

https://time.com/7062260/supreme-cou...ncy-abortions/



Well look at that. The court that overturned Roe strikes again.

Ladies in Texas just better hope they don't experience any pregnancy complications. I wonder if these laws will have any statistically noticeable impacts on birth rates in the respective states.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe im not reading this right but are they saying hospitals can refuse abortions because of legal liability even if the result is death?

Yes, that's been the problem since Roe was overturned - the vagueness around many of these strict laws results in hospitals being unwilling to provide care until the girl/woman's life is literally in imminent danger (and even then) out of fear of prosecution and the consequences that come with that. Which is why many of these girls/women have died, or gone through extreme suffering that has left some unable to have children again, which was completely preventable and avoidable.

It's genuinely monstrous.

[Gigantique]

Ladies in Texas just better hope they don't experience any pregnancy complications. I wonder if these laws will have any statistically noticeable impacts on birth rates in the respective states.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, that's been the problem since Roe was overturned - the vagueness around many of these strict laws results in hospitals being unwilling to provide care until the girl/woman's life is literally in imminent danger (and even then) out of fear of prosecution and the consequences that come with that. Which is why many of these girls/women have died, or gone through extreme suffering that has left some unable to have children again, which was completely preventable and avoidable.

It's genuinely monstrous.

But Edge, think of all the children born into households that for one reason or another wasn't prepared to have a(nother) child and they will now burden logistically and/or financially!

Said household might even include a mother that has some level of possibly permanent damage because of said pregnancy!

Family values!