Roe vs Wade Overturned

[Chef Jim]

On 6/25/2022 at 3:46 AM, BringMetheHeadofLeonLett said:

No dipshit, nobody's cheering on the idea that we as human beings are addled with very difficult moral decisions.  

Dipshit?   He seemed to be happy for the Dems. 🙄

[The Frankish Reich]

10 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Do you think the Supreme Court will rule a federal abortion ban constitutional?

They shouldn't. Not under the reasoning of Dobbs. I'm not aware of any U.S. constitutional hook you could hang that on.

A federal law protecting abortion rights in all 50 states? A closer call, because Congress has used (and the Supreme Court has upheld, over and over again) the use of the commerce clause for the protection of individual rights. Too much to explain here, but this does a pretty good job if you've got the time to dig in: 

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/public_education/insights/Insights14-2.pdf

 

Of course, the use of the commerce clause for such expansions of federal power is also under attack, so it's also possible that this Supreme Court would shoot that down. But that would have extreme repercussions, taking the Civil Rights Act down with it.

 

Hey, all of this uncertainty (guns, state money to students attending religious-based schools, abortion laws) is a Full Employment Act for Lawyers, for which I should be thankful ...

[Tenhigh]

28 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

It’s interesting that no one is suggesting appropriate punishments for girls/women guilty of committing abortion. I’d bet that is probably the same response as is about to happen in republican state legislatures as they now have to deal with this hot potato. It’s easy take extreme positions on the issue when it didn’t matter because Roe was in place. Now these republicans have to make laws that will have consequences for their constituents. They will now have to send girls to prison or modify their view on the issue at the expense of disappointing the religious right. 

My guess is that its because most don't expect the woman to see much in the way of penalties.  It's the abortion doctor that will likely face real time. 

[Andy1]

7 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:

My guess is that its because most don't expect the woman to see much in the way of penalties.  It's the abortion doctor that will likely face real time. 

Then this is where it gets illogical and indefensible. If a woman takes her one-year old baby to a doctor to be killed, she would be charged with accessory to murder or whatever the appropriate legal charge is. Under the logic of the hardliners, a woman taking her embryo/fetus to get an abortion is doing the same thing. To treat the two scenarios differently would be admitting that an embryo/fetus is not in fact the same as a person. 

[The Frankish Reich]

7 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

Then this is where it gets illogical and indefensible. If a woman takes her one-year old baby to a doctor to be killed, she would be charged with accessory to murder or whatever the appropriate legal charge is. Under the logic of the hardliners, a woman taking her embryo/fetus to get an abortion is doing the same thing. To treat the two scenarios differently would be admitting that an embryo/fetus is not in fact the same as a person. 

Exactly. 

And that's why arguing from propositions like "A fetus is a human life, therefore abortion is murder" doesn't stick.

I respect people who believe abortion is wrong. And I agree that abortions after a certain stage of development (certainly viability) are wrong.

But almost no one finds a very early term abortion to be the moral equivalent of the killing of a newborn infant. They are not the same thing, and even the most strident opponents of legal abortion concede that by proposing different treatment of a woman who has an abortion vs. a woman who kills her baby.

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Exactly. 

And that's why arguing from propositions like "A fetus is a human life, therefore abortion is murder" doesn't stick.

I respect people who believe abortion is wrong. And I agree that abortions after a certain stage of development (certainly viability) are wrong.

But almost no one finds a very early term abortion to be the moral equivalent of the killing of a newborn infant. They are not the same thing, and even the most strident opponents of legal abortion concede that by proposing different treatment of a woman who has an abortion vs. a woman who kills her baby.

Very well thought out. Sounds like the hyperbole may be dying down enough to have an actual adult discussion that may result in some well crafted legislation that the American people may be allowed to vote on! 👍

[Tenhigh]

 

1 hour ago, Andy1 said:

Then this is where it gets illogical and indefensible. If a woman takes her one-year old baby to a doctor to be killed, she would be charged with accessory to murder or whatever the appropriate legal charge is. Under the logic of the hardliners, a woman taking her embryo/fetus to get an abortion is doing the same thing. To treat the two scenarios differently would be admitting that an embryo/fetus is not in fact the same as a person. 

You aren't wrong, qnd there is a lot that isnt logical in this topic.  Maybe dial back some rhetoric and we can all have an honest discussion,  I bet we have more common ground than you think. 

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, Andy1 said:

Then this is where it gets illogical and indefensible. If a woman takes her one-year old baby to a doctor to be killed, she would be charged with accessory to murder or whatever the appropriate legal charge is. Under the logic of the hardliners, a woman taking her embryo/fetus to get an abortion is doing the same thing. To treat the two scenarios differently would be admitting that an embryo/fetus is not in fact the same as a person. 

 

You keep asking this question of what the penalties will be for committing an abortion where it is newly illegal.  Expecting they'll be similar, though in some cases less severe, to the penalties for committing an abortion in the 3rd trimester which is what most state laws have deemed illegal for most of the past 49 years.  So, do some homework and find out.

[Taro T]

It will be very interesting to see how & how much this will effect the results of elections in the future.  If both parties are smart they won't use this one issue as a litmus test for vetting their candidates as it could have significant unintended consequences both ways.  

 

It could hurt R's with the "soccer moms" that presumably are prochoice & others in that category.

 

But it also could hurt D's among Hispanic and other populations that are strongly prolife though they have historically voted for the D's.

 

And, though some are convinced this issue will rile up one voting base more than the other and end up THE issue in '22, '24, & moving forward; the economy almost always trumps all other issues.  A good economy & the incumbent party is pretty much a lock.  A poor economy and it's only the long established incumbents that remain locks & open seats & those held by 1 or 2 termers of the party in power go for the other one.  Maybe this will be different, but if inflation & shortages are still rampant; wouldn't have any money on this being the issue that carries the day this November.

[SCBills]

Re: Roe’s affect on future elections.. Dems should tread carefully.  
 

They had the upper hand on Roe.  R’s messaging on what Roe actually is, was terrible and Dems were able to effectively pull public support behind keeping it as the illusion of protecting a women’s right to choose from becoming women, everywhere, have no right to choose.  
 

It’s shocking how many people thought abortion would become illegal, and furthermore didn’t realize Dem effects to codify Roe included elective abortion up to the moment of birth.  
 

Now, the debate in red & purple states shifts to Republicans home turf.   They run the risk of giving that home field advantage away when they push for total bans and no carve outs for rare exceptions.  However, the states that push for first trimester abortion access with only rare exceptions being legal after will put Dems on the defense.   
 

The majority of America (and the civilized world) do not support elective abortion after the first trimester.  
 

Dems have tried to divert this debate under Roe, but no longer will be able to do so as in - say - Georgia, a state that polling suggests supports the heartbeat ban, Stacy Abrams is now running on abortion up until the moment of birth against Kemp… in a race she was already struggling in.  Same for “Reverend” Warnock vs a weak candidate in Hershel Walker.  
 

Also at tremendous risk for the Dems.. rapidly expediting the move of Latinos becoming Republican voters.  

[Tiberius]

7 minutes ago, Taro T said:

It will be very interesting to see how & how much this will effect the results of elections in the future.  If both parties are smart they won't use this one issue as a litmus test for vetting their candidates as it could have significant unintended consequences both ways.  

 

It could hurt R's with the "soccer moms" that presumably are prochoice & others in that category.

 

But it also could hurt D's among Hispanic and other populations that are strongly prolife though they have historically voted for the D's.

 

And, though some are convinced this issue will rile up one voting base more than the other and end up THE issue in '22, '24, & moving forward; the economy almost always trumps all other issues.  A good economy & the incumbent party is pretty much a lock.  A poor economy and it's only the long established incumbents that remain locks & open seats & those held by 1 or 2 termers of the party in power go for the other one.  Maybe this will be different, but if inflation & shortages are still rampant; wouldn't have any money on this being the issue that carries the day this November.

Since the issue will now be on the state ballots there will be no way of not mentioning it or running on it. With such a huge majority of people being pro-choice, the Dems have to push it....until it shows its merits, or lack there of as an issue. Reps will have to pledge to turn blue states pro-life to win nominations and Dems will pledge to protect women's rights. 

 

Hispanics are not really as pro-life as they use to be.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/anti-abortion-latinos-supreme-court-roe-v-wade-rcna27538

6 minutes ago, SCBills said:

Re: Roe’s affect on future elections.. Dems should tread carefully.  
 

They had the upper hand on Roe.  R’s messaging on what Roe actually is, was terrible and Dems were able to effectively pull public support behind keeping it as the illusion of protecting a women’s right to choose from becoming women, everywhere, have no right to choose.  
 

It’s shocking how many people thought abortion would become illegal, and furthermore didn’t realize Dem effects to codify Roe included elective abortion up to the moment of birth.  
 

Now, the debate in red & purple states shifts to Republicans home turf.   They run the risk of giving that home field advantage away when they push for total bans and no carve outs for rare exceptions.  However, the states that push for first trimester abortion access with only rare exceptions being legal after will put Dems on the defense.   
 

The majority of America (and the civilized world) do not support elective abortion after the first trimester.  
 

Dems have tried to divert this debate under Roe, but no longer will be able to do so as in - say - Georgia, a state that polling suggests supports the heartbeat ban, Stacy Abrams is now running on abortion up until the moment of birth against Kemp… in a race she was already struggling in.  Same for “Reverend” Warnock vs a weak candidate in Hershel Walker.  
 

Also at tremendous risk for the Dems.. rapidly expediting the move of Latinos becoming Republican voters.  

Reps should of had a slam dunk win in Nov, now this ruling has pumped up Dems...I mean along with the fact Reps might just end the republic. 

[Boatdrinks]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Very well thought out. Sounds like the hyperbole may be dying down enough to have an actual adult discussion that may result in some well crafted legislation that the American people may be allowed to vote on! 👍

I’d venture this is where most people fall on the issue. Not all, and not at the extreme edges to be certain , but most. 

[Boatdrinks]

20 minutes ago, Taro T said:

It will be very interesting to see how & how much this will effect the results of elections in the future.  If both parties are smart they won't use this one issue as a litmus test for vetting their candidates as it could have significant unintended consequences both ways.  

 

It could hurt R's with the "soccer moms" that presumably are prochoice & others in that category.

 

But it also could hurt D's among Hispanic and other populations that are strongly prolife though they have historically voted for the D's.

 

And, though some are convinced this issue will rile up one voting base more than the other and end up THE issue in '22, '24, & moving forward; the economy almost always trumps all other issues.  A good economy & the incumbent party is pretty much a lock.  A poor economy and it's only the long established incumbents that remain locks & open seats & those held by 1 or 2 termers of the party in power go for the other one.  Maybe this will be different, but if inflation & shortages are still rampant; wouldn't have any money on this being the issue that carries the day this November.

Agree. Republicans should focus on the economy and promoting the development and production of cheap energy. It’s literally the fuel of the American economic engine. Then I’d maintain a strong emphasis on the border and education. Abortion really should be quite a ways down on the list if they are serious about retaking control of congress and reclaiming the Presidency in 2024 with a strong America first agenda. 

[BillStime]

[Boatdrinks]

1 hour ago, Tenhigh said:

 

You aren't wrong, qnd there is a lot that isnt logical in this topic.  Maybe dial back some rhetoric and we can all have an honest discussion,  I bet we have more common ground than you think. 

I’d bet there is more common ground for most people than is usually pushed by the media. The fringes shouldn’t decide this issue. 

[BillStime]

42 minutes ago, SCBills said:

Re: Roe’s affect on future elections.. Dems should tread carefully.  
 

They had the upper hand on Roe.  R’s messaging on what Roe actually is, was terrible and Dems were able to effectively pull public support behind keeping it as the illusion of protecting a women’s right to choose from becoming women, everywhere, have no right to choose.  
 

It’s shocking how many people thought abortion would become illegal, and furthermore didn’t realize Dem effects to codify Roe included elective abortion up to the moment of birth.  
 

Now, the debate in red & purple states shifts to Republicans home turf.   They run the risk of giving that home field advantage away when they push for total bans and no carve outs for rare exceptions.  However, the states that push for first trimester abortion access with only rare exceptions being legal after will put Dems on the defense.   
 

The majority of America (and the civilized world) do not support elective abortion after the first trimester.  
 

Dems have tried to divert this debate under Roe, but no longer will be able to do so as in - say - Georgia, a state that polling suggests supports the heartbeat ban, Stacy Abrams is now running on abortion up until the moment of birth against Kemp… in a race she was already struggling in.  Same for “Reverend” Warnock vs a weak candidate in Hershel Walker.  
 

Also at tremendous risk for the Dems.. rapidly expediting the move of Latinos becoming Republican voters.  

 

You totally forget the voice of young voters. They were the difference in the last election.

 

[Pokebball]

4 hours ago, Andy1 said:

Then this is where it gets illogical and indefensible. If a woman takes her one-year old baby to a doctor to be killed, she would be charged with accessory to murder or whatever the appropriate legal charge is. Under the logic of the hardliners, a woman taking her embryo/fetus to get an abortion is doing the same thing. To treat the two scenarios differently would be admitting that an embryo/fetus is not in fact the same as a person. 

The difference, of course, is that the fetus is inside it's mother. That doesn't mean it's not a life.

 

We are not going to come to some kind of agreement unless we're all willing to compromise. There are hundreds of buts like the one you mention above. Can we work through all of those and find a national solution we can all  live with?

[BillStime]

🎯

 

 

[nedboy7]

5 hours ago, FireChans said:

Okay, what decisions has this Supreme Court made that contradicted “originalism,” to do “whatever the hell you want?”

 

The Supreme Court’s Faux ‘Originalism’

The conservative Supreme Court's favorite judicial philosophy requires a very, very firm grasp of history — one that none of the justices seem to possess.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/26/conservative-supreme-court-gun-control-00042417

[Beach]

i am pro-choice, but i am enjoying the liberal tears for a little bit