SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Endus]

Founders were bullied into supporting Virginia and her stance on Slavery which brought the Southern Colonies in tow.

Some of those Founders, like Jefferson, were Virgianian.

A lot of Americans like to pretend their Founding Fathers were mythic heroes who stood head and shoulders above their fellow men, ethically and morally and intellectually, but a lot of them were pretty fucking stupid, and a lot of the rest were amoral sons-of-bitches like Jefferson, the brutal slave-raping slaveowner. Who, despite writing some supposedly pro-abolition stuff, went home and raped his wife's half-sister (whom he owned, as a slave) repeatedly, fathering children on her, and then never emancipating her or his children, even though he absolutely could have.

[tehdang]

But the amendment process you cited there wasn't used in it's true form with all the state legislatures. The 3/5ths compromise and black sufferage were not done because of the amendment process. They were done because states left the union and were in open rebellion and the remaining states passed the amendments because Originalism as a framework was used to support slavery.

So this wasn't some successful amendment process this was done while we were killing each other. Originalism leads to civil war because there's no way to rectify the egregious behaviors that the founders supported, which were Slavery, Anti-Woman Suffrage, and support for a welfare state.

I'm not sure how you gloss over the fact that the Civil War was being fought and then the Civil War Amendments were passed largely without the Southern States approval.

You're really trying to smear concepts. If states are so irate at something that they're willing to start a war, that isn't some failure of the amendment process. If a couple gets a divorce, you don't say marriage was the true cause of divorce. The fact of open rebellion is necessarily a one-sided affair. You're going into dangerous territory implying that any system that can't force compliance and prevent war is a bad system for that reason.

You're missing a little bit of history saying "the remaining states passed the amendments." Don't confuse Reconstruction Amendments with the Civil War. The Civil War had already ended before the passage of the 14th amendment. The 15th amendment passed and was ratified after that. Oh yes, the Congress was in turmoil, but they were duly voted on and passed with the required majorities. They were both additional points in favor of the amendment process. The Republican party even got a great victory when President Johnson & Democrats disapproved of ratification and fought it, and it was an election issue in 1866 (Score another point for the amendment process, in which voters can react based upon political parties aligning for or against amendment issues like ratification).

The country was still in uproar, there was heavy disunity, but still the amendments were passed and ratified, and fought over and won. I'd say there's the proof of resiliency of the process in the midst of horrible circumstances. Apologies if you were expecting the process to be less bumpy in the wake of an actual war with hundreds of thousands dead. It still had a vote and ratification process, as constitutionally required.

I'll add the reminder that I approve of the passage of amendments even if a third of the representatives of both houses of Congress disapprove. I also approve if the ratification of 3/4 of states takes some time and has its own setbacks, as well as if up to 1/4 of states do still disapprove. The presence of such disapproval or noninvolvement is part of the process too.

[Miffinat0r]

Some of those Founders, like Jefferson, were Virgianian.

A lot of Americans like to pretend their Founding Fathers were mythic heroes who stood head and shoulders above their fellow men, ethically and morally and intellectually, but a lot of them were pretty fucking stupid, and a lot of the rest were amoral sons-of-bitches like Jefferson, the brutal slave-raping slaveowner. Who, despite writing some supposedly pro-abolition stuff, went home and raped his wife's half-sister (whom he owned, as a slave) repeatedly, fathering children on her, and then never emancipating her or his children, even though he absolutely could have.

Jefferson is my least favorite founding father. I call him a fraud if I get drunk. The dude was a walking hypocrisy. He personally reviled Slavery, he said so often when speaking around Franklin, but in his personal life he raped his female slaves and refused to acknowledge his children. Even generations after Slavery had died the Jefferson estate iirc didn't recognize them until like the 80's almost 200 years after when this occurred.

Jefferson was a clown of the highest order. He was anti-big government, but when he got power he used that big government a lot. He expanded the fed larger than any previous founder, and then when he got out he immediately went back to trashing it.

Jefferson did not understand debt in the least bit. Only Hamilton had the foresight on how to manage a new country. Jefferson was too far up Locke and Paine's butts to see how actually real governance would look.

The founders literally sent Jefferson to Paris to be a diplomat with Franklin when they wrote the federalist papers and when they were garnering support for the constitution. A document he opposed; but Jefferson was such a clown his protégé Madison basically took his principals and put them in the constitution and Jefferson still wasn't happy about it. He's literally a giant baby with a skill in penmanship. But don't let the lofty ideals of freedom and the rights of men blind you to the fact he was still an awful person and was not enlightened on race, or gender.

- - - Updated - - -

You're really trying to smear concepts. If states are so irate at something that they're willing to start a war, that isn't some failure of the amendment process. If a couple gets a divorce, you don't say marriage was the true cause of divorce. The fact of open rebellion is necessarily a one-sided affair. You're going into dangerous territory implying that any system that can't force compliance and prevent war is a bad system for that reason.

You're missing a little bit of history saying "the remaining states passed the amendments." Don't confuse Reconstruction Amendments with the Civil War. The Civil War had already ended before the passage of the 14th amendment. The 15th amendment passed and was ratified after that. Oh yes, the Congress was in turmoil, but they were duly voted on and passed with the required majorities. They were both additional points in favor of the amendment process. The Republican party even got a great victory when President Johnson & Democrats disapproved of ratification and fought it, and it was an election issue in 1866 (Score another point for the amendment process, in which voters can react based upon political parties aligning for or against amendment issues like ratification).

The country was still in uproar, there was heavy disunity, but still the amendments were passed and ratified, and fought over and won. I'd say there's the proof of resiliency of the process in the midst of horrible circumstances. Apologies if you were expecting the process to be less bumpy in the wake of an actual war with hundreds of thousands dead. It still had a vote and ratification process, as constitutionally required.

I'll add the reminder that I approve of the passage of amendments even if a third of the representatives of both houses of Congress disapprove. I also approve if the ratification of 3/4 of states takes some time and has its own setbacks, as well as if up to 1/4 of states do still disapprove. The presence of such disapproval or noninvolvement is part of the process too.

But none of this was normal or laid out the way the Founders saw fit (Shocking, especially given Southern Founders specifically helped craft the constitution with protecting Slavery in mind). The 13th was proposed during the civil war. Most of the debate concluded by congress happened before April which half of the body was not a part of. They did it without them. Following the civil war the amendment was passed in December. So again their input was not given, nor was it wanted.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th were package deals that States who left the union had to accept if they were rejoined. The 14th was the first, the 15th added later. Again this all done by force and not through voting. Sure there was a vote, but that's like calling North Korea Democratic because they have Democratic in their title. The vote was largely for show.

And no the system cannot force any state to do any thing because again we saw with the Civil War that the amendment process doesn't work if a large geographic area of states don't agree. The founders knew this we know from Franklin's writings that we would face this day but again instead of making the hard choice of living up to your ideals they retreated back into ignorance and kicked the can down the road. Lets also not forget that originalism was the argument framework used by Southern Democrats post 1870 to argue for Jim Crow, and other egregious conservative restrictions based on race or gender of the individual.

All we're doing now with the abortion is doing the same steps we took during the civil war.

Remember all the huff and puff about making PR and DC states? Literally in the build up to the Civil War both the South and North were racing to add states an no one said it was unconstitutional. It's not.

We're about to head into a world of Jurisdiction Stripping (Just like the congress did with the reconstruction acts) Congress literally stripped the authority of the SCOTUS from McCardle over the reconstruction acts. The court dismissed McCardle's case recognizing that under Article 3 section 2 that the Congress has the authority to set appellate jurisdiction and removed the SCOTUS from ever getting the case, which they would've used an originalist argument to overturn and rule in favor of McCardle.

[Endus]

Jefferson is my least favorite founding father. I call him a fraud if I get drunk. The dude was a walking hypocrisy. He personally reviled Slavery, he said so often when speaking around Franklin, but in his personal life he raped his female slaves and refused to acknowledge his children. Even generations after Slavery had died the Jefferson estate iirc didn't recognize them until like the 80's almost 200 years after when this occurred.

Jefferson was a clown of the highest order. He was anti-big government, but when he got power he used that big government a lot. He expanded the fed larger than any previous founder, and then when he got out he immediately went back to trashing it.

Jefferson did not understand debt in the least bit. Only Hamilton had the foresight on how to manage a new country. Jefferson was too far up Locke and Paine's butts to see how actually real governance would look.

The founders literally sent Jefferson to Paris to be a diplomat with Franklin when they wrote the federalist papers and when they were garnering support for the constitution. A document he opposed; but Jefferson was such a clown his protégé Madison basically took his principals and put them in the constitution and Jefferson still wasn't happy about it. He's literally a giant baby with a skill in penmanship. But don't let the lofty ideals of freedom and the rights of men blind you to the fact he was still an awful person and was not enlightened on race, or gender.

I used to give his writings a lot more credence; you can probably find early posts of mine here puffing him up.

That all really changed when the last time I was in the States, I made a point of visiting his Monticello estate. Full credit to the restoration and interpretation there; it's a really well-done operation and is focused on the historical realities of the estate, not mythologizing Jefferson himself. Opened my eyes, and I've done a fair bit of further reading in the years since, and I'm left with very little reason to retain any respect for the man or much of what he wrote.

[tehdang]

But none of this was normal or laid out the way the Founders saw fit (Shocking, especially given Southern Founders specifically helped craft the constitution with protecting Slavery in mind). The 13th was proposed during the civil war. Most of the debate concluded by congress happened before April which half of the body was not a part of. They did it without them. Following the civil war the amendment was passed in December. So again their input was not given, nor was it wanted.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th were package deals that States who left the union had to accept if they were rejoined. The 14th was the first, the 15th added later. Again this all done by force and not through voting. Sure there was a vote, but that's like calling North Korea Democratic because they have Democratic in their title. The vote was largely for show.

And no the system cannot force any state to do any thing because again we saw with the Civil War that the amendment process doesn't work if a large geographic area of states don't agree. The founders knew this we know from Franklin's writings that we would face this day but again instead of making the hard choice of living up to your ideals they retreated back into ignorance and kicked the can down the road. Lets also not forget that originalism was the argument framework used by Southern Democrats post 1870 to argue for Jim Crow, and other egregious conservative restrictions based on race or gender of the individual.

All we're doing now with the abortion is doing the same steps we took during the civil war.

Remember all the huff and puff about making PR and DC states? Literally in the build up to the Civil War both the South and North were racing to add states an no one said it was unconstitutional. It's not.

We're about to head into a world of Jurisdiction Stripping (Just like the congress did with the reconstruction acts) Congress literally stripped the authority of the SCOTUS from McCardle over the reconstruction acts. The court dismissed McCardle's case recognizing that under Article 3 section 2 that the Congress has the authority to set appellate jurisdiction and removed the SCOTUS from ever getting the case, which they would've used an originalist argument to overturn and rule in favor of McCardle.

Not normal, but fighting a Civil War and having the constitutional structure survive is not normal. Civil wars typically end in overthrow and redrafting, particularly for the bloodiest ones that aren't quickly settled. Point to the constitutional order and amendment process.

Reconstruction Amendments were voted on. Several legislatures in the South didn't send representatives and other tomfoolery, but it was an actual vote with the constitutionally prescribed majorities. Sorry, they missed the vote for a variety of reasons and had sour grapes. Still enough ratifiers based on initial ratification votes.

You're still not fully reconciling the act of rebellion and war being separate than a critique of the system itself. You're either supportive of a theoretical better system that can force humans to not engage in war and insurrection, or you're accepting that it isn't a critique of constitution and amendment process itself. It sounds like you're leaning towards accepting that your previous criticism wasn't valid, but not quite there yet. No rush.

Certain hot rhetoric resembles Civil War era rhetoric. That's already a problem in voting systems that require an existing civil order that accepts losses. I believe a constitution with an amendment process, like the one we have, does the best job allowing dissenters to sort themselves out while moving forward with supermajority constitutional amendments. Competing ideas like simple majority everything fail to only act if there's huge representative consensus in a single direction. In the heated abortion debate, even a pro-abortion constitutional amendment would have vocal dissenters. I think that allowances for the facts of disunity is no reason to point to the huff and puff as a fault of the constitution.

Admitting new states is still Congressional power as detailed in the Constitution, and Congress has not seen fit to do it. The PR and DC statehood movements aren't burning anything down for the injustice yet. The constitutional process is still observed. I yield to you that if a civil war erupts over subsequent Congresses admitting new states into the Union back and forth, you may yet gain your point. That will be two major times in our history, not just once just before an actual Civil War.

Jurisdiction Stripping was found to be constitutional under Article III. I'll let the past and future judges write their law articles on whether Ex parte McCardle was rightly decided. Jurisdictional jurisprudence is getting pretty far removed from topic and more in the end of constitutional lawyer debates on Article III powers. I'll also note that Article III powers can be taken away by constitutional amendment as well, if necessary.

I should separately observe that the tenor of the debate in the country is improperly skewed towards a vocal minority of voices. The actual votes on abortion within states show much more moderation and compromise. Legal until banned after ~20/21/22/23/24/25/26 weeks + legal until birth are in several Blue and Red states, overall ~64% of states. The minority of states include current legislation or trigger laws for heavy restriction pre-viability in around 12, all this subject to judicial proceedings. Outright banned in 6. This vast difference state-by-state is more suggestive of a hotly debated issue where opinions vary immensely, than a clear prelude to "the same steps we took during the civil war." Maybe you can tell me if you think states where abortion is legal are sufficiently pissed at the rest of the country to try to separate from the Union. States being able to make laws for themselves is also part of the constitutional order, and relieves stress on 1-size-fits-all national policies. Taking the violence and civil disorder after leak and after passage together, I don't think it even rose to violence and lawlessness seen after the 2016 election, and it was well below the response to George Floyd's actions. I'm seeing citizens slowly working through their anger and finding legislative/federal administrative solutions, more than a populace headed towards Civil War. Again, they're taking their grievances through constitutionally-formed avenues, which is another point in favor of that system, and a point against abortion being the final straw the broke an unjust system.

[Edge-]

https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-...-steele-2022-6

Reminder that Republicans don't actually give a shit about "states rights" on this issue.

Tur asked: "Sen. Chris Murphy said that if Republicans are able to retake the House and Senate, they will pass a federal ban on abortion. Do believe that would happen."

"Yes. Without hesitation. They will set the marker," Steele replied.

"Because it's in their base's interest to do so," he said. "That's the difference politically between the two parties. Republicans will go, 'oh, yeah, the Constitution and the filibuster, all the tradition, the sanctity of the Senate.' They don't give a rat's patootie about that when it's the bottom line in politics and power."

"So absolutely, a national ban on abortion will be one of the first pieces of legislation probably next to impeaching Joe Biden," he said, without providing evidence for his claim that the GOP would seek to impeach Biden.

This is from former head of the Republican National Committee Michael Steele. I believe him.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.vice.com/en/article/aked...on-sodomy-laws

And more, Ken Paxton, AG for TX, is eager to enforce anti-sodomy laws because the Republican party still wants to control what you do with consenting adults in the privacy of your home.

He's coming after all those folks that just want to eat some ass.

This isn't about "states rights" or "protecting life", it's about the Republican party controlling what we can do with our bodies and limiting our freedoms.

- - - Updated - - -

https://truthout.org/articles/treatm...o-trigger-law/

Due to a restrictive new anti-abortion law in Missouri, health care providers in the state are reportedly waiting until ectopic pregnancies become dangerous to provide medical treatment — despite the fact that such pregnancies are known to be painful, nonviable and potentially fatal to those who experience them.

In 2019, Republican lawmakers in the state passed a “trigger ban” on abortions that would take effect if Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark Supreme Court decision protecting abortion rights, was overturned. After the Court overturned that precedent last week, state Attorney General Eric Schmitt certified in a legal opinion that the trigger ban is now in effect.

The new law forbids anyone from inducing or performing an abortion on another person, and contains no exceptions for rape or incest. An abortion can only be performed when a person’s health or life is in danger, it stipulates.

Just a reminder that Republicans don't give a rat's ass about protecting life. It's all about removing bodily autonomy and enforcing their extremist religious views on the nation. Don't support Y'all Qaeda.

[DarkTZeratul]

Just a reminder that Republicans don't give a rat's ass about protecting life. It's all about removing bodily autonomy and enforcing their extremist religious views on the nation. Don't support Y'all Qaeda.

There are also multiple reports of patients with Lupus or RA being suddenly denied refills on their methotrexate prescriptions, because it's also an abortifacient. Even though they're not pregnant, and may have no plans to become pregnant.

[Edge-]

There are also multiple reports of patients with Lupus or RA being suddenly denied refills on their methotrexate prescriptions, because it's also an abortifacient. Even though they're not pregnant, and may have no plans to become pregnant.

Fuckin seriously? I was on that shit for a while to try to treat some rheumatoid arthritis symptoms. Fuckin Republicans are wild, and continue to make it obvious that the cruelty is very much the point.

They really need to just start having some guilt-free sex more often, maybe they'll be happier. Granted they'll have to fuck each other since ain't nobody wants to fuck a conservative nowadays according to reports from dating apps.

[Endus]

This isn't about "states rights" or "protecting life", it's about the Republican party controlling what we can do with our bodies and limiting our freedoms.

1> We get to tell you what you get to do.
2> You don't get to tell us what to do.

Again, that's the entire Republican platform for the last 40 years. Everything else has been smokescreen to keep from saying that out loud. They're fascists, and this is gonna keep escalating until they're slaughtering "undesirables" in death camps, unless they're stopped.

Maybe people will say that's a pretty extreme thing to say, but people were poo-pooing Germans who pointed out what the Nazi Party was arguing for in the 1920s, too.

[Hammerfest]

The two sides will never settle anything as long as one side looks at this issue as a right to life issue.

[Rasulis]

Fuckin seriously? I was on that shit for a while to try to treat some rheumatoid arthritis symptoms. Fuckin Republicans are wild, and continue to make it obvious that the cruelty is very much the point.

They really need to just start having some guilt-free sex more often, maybe they'll be happier. Granted they'll have to fuck each other since ain't nobody wants to fuck a conservative nowadays according to reports from dating apps.

Well, mifepristone is FDA approved to treat Cushing disease. It is also being researched for PTSD, cancer, depression, eye disease and endometriosis. In fact NIH listed mifepristone in clinical trials for 245 conditions.

Misoprostol is used to treat stomach ulcers, and studied for postpartum hemorrhage, fibroids, c-section complications, and to improve success rates of IUD insertions.

[Endus]

The two sides will never settle anything as long as one side looks at this issue as a right to life issue.

You mean "as long as one side ignores that women are people and have rights that should be protected".

It is not and has never been about "right to life", for anyone, at any point in this debate. Anyone making that case is lying. And if you push them hard enough, every time, they admit it.

[Edge-]

https://thehill.com/policy/3541783-m...ncies-to-term/

A reporter then asked, “So that 12-year-old child molested by her father or uncle should carry that child to term?” to which Gunn replied, “That is my personal belief.”

Republicans want to force children to carry the child of incest and rape. They continue to be monsters.

[Darththeo]

What I find funny, not funny haha but funny people don't care to realize everything.

People oppose Roe v Wade because the court "read in a right that does not exist." They argue that it isn't expressed explicitly therefore cannot be read into the Constitution.
However, they support the Court's right to declare a Law UnConstitutional despite the Constitution not expressly giving them that power and having only been given to them because of a Court Case. It wasn't a recognized power of the court until that case.

So, all these people claiming to be originalists should not support the court declaring laws UnConstitutional. The only reason the Constitution is considered the "highest law in the land" is because the Courts declared it as such, not the document itself. It was not an original power of the court but one the courts interpreted.

[Mihalik]

The two sides will never settle anything as long as one side looks at this issue as a right to life issue.

One more time.

Even if they do. One's right to life, does not supersede the right of another's to their bodily autonomy.

If it you claim it does, well here come mandatory blood transfusions, organ transplant, organ harvesting from the dead, mandatory vaccinations etc.

Their "logic" is internally inconsistent.

It's not about the right to life, it's pro-birthism at whatever cost.

- - - Updated - - -

https://thehill.com/policy/3541783-m...ncies-to-term/



Republicans want to force children to carry the child of incest and rape. They continue to be monsters.

She wouldn't have gotten pregnant if it was real rape!

https://www.newsweek.com/republican-...t-rape-1719517

GOP bringing back the old classics.

[Gestopft]

Republicans want to force children to carry the child of incest and rape. They continue to be monsters.

And they aren't afraid of saying the most ghoulish parts out loud anymore. Because they aren't scared of consequences.

[Edge-]

And they aren't afraid of saying the most ghoulish parts out loud anymore. Because they aren't scared of consequences.

Because there are no consequences from their voters.

[Darththeo]

A video from a lawyer going over the decision.

Honestly, he does address things that people question.

[postman1782]

Only 8 years ago we had Todd Akin saying rapes don't cause pregnancies' because the body can reject it.

Like what Disney written story are you existing in? (you being republicans, not you as postman1782, for clarification)

Literally none of them took part in a health class in school.

[Poopymonster]

Literally none of them took part in a health class in school.

Perhaps they did.
Long ago, it covered such things as cigarettes have vitamins, thalidamide is safe and valium for all housewives.