Not from Republicans and the God botherers.

And it gets better! Kentucky had a trigger law set up so the moment the Supreme Court overturned Roe Vs Wade, abortion was banned in Kentucky.
Presto! Now you see it, now you don't!

I must say this is about the only "trigger law" I feel comfortable with. Great day for unborn children of the United States of America!

No more population control and systematic genocide of Minorities!

HAHAHA.... unless they will need healthcare or an education or to earn a living.

You know, of course, that abortion will not reduce? the only thing which will reduce is safe abortions.

For the terminally hard of thinking, yet again, when a foetus is aborted it is not a child, not a viable human being. As said above I'm glad that so far I live in a civilized western European nation and not the trash heap that is modern USA

Since it's now a state issue, there will still be many states where abortion will remain legal for those that choose abortion. I noticed California intends to be an abortion friendly state. Lots of minorities to stamp out.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.

Unborn "victim"?

Victim: a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action

Seems to me the law recognizes the unborn as a "person".

“I mean, did you see what she was wearing?”

It's OK now you van get what you need to preform an Abortion at an auto parts store.

Sad, sad day indeed.

All rights not directly stated verbatim in the constitution or amendments are now up for grabs. So... pretty much the constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on any longer. The confederates finally got what they wanted. They destroyed the union. They're really not going to like the eventual and inevitable outcome but what can you do. Spoiled children throwing temper tantrums never want to listen to reason.

Of course, the only bright side of this situation is that states can now outright ban guns. Remember, "gun" isn't written anywhere in the constitution or any of the amendments so they're now up for grabs as well. Let the Supreme Court throw its whole weight behind blocking any such laws and then we'll get to watch them slide into irrelevancy when the states tell them to try and stop them. After all, they're the ones that made up these new rules from whole cloth in the first place. It's going to be an ugly ride but I'll love watching Republicans having to deal with their own hypocrisy thrown right back into their faces.

California appears to be the only state that might actually do such a thing and I really do hope that they do. The governor here seems to be one of the only high ranking Democrats actually speaking out against all this Republican insanity. He hasn't actually done anything yet though, which is rather annoying to say the least.

C'mon! Let's get this **** show on the road already!

Remember, Rome wasn't sacked in a day!

Hey GaughEyad, post more often. We need people like you on the forum, whether people like your opinion or not.

He's got a point, though. Abortion rights are only a Democrat issue by default, because the other side has wanted so badly to outlaw it. As a party they aren't actually pro-choice. They've used abortion rights for campaign purposes, but have shied away from taking concrete steps to protect those rights, and they're always the first on the chopping block when compromise comes around.

Case in point: the day after the decision was leaked a few weeks ago, Nancy Pelosi and a couple of other prominent Democrats were due to fly out to Texas to campaign for Henry Cuellar, a conservative, rabidly anti-choice blue dog Democrat incumbent. With their help, he beat his progressive, pro-choice primary challenger by less than three hundred votes. They could have canceled their trip to support someone who is currently applauding this SCOTUS decision, for the optics if nothing else. They did not. That is how little abortion rights actually mean to them.

And on the very day of the decision, even as a swarm of protestors was descending on SCOTUS, they gathered to celebrate passage of a marginally effective gun control bill that will probably get slapped down by that same court anyways.

They sang "God Bless America" together.

My understanding is they were gathered on the steps on the east facing side of the capitol. The protest was happening in their field of few not a few hundred yards away.

Now we know the truth, there was more than one Reagan Youth.

They're the Supreme Court, and are dominated by people who really don't give a crap about the law. They'll make the ruling they want to make, and won't care that any legal reasoning behind the decision is nonsensical*.

And once that ruling is made, there is no one else in the US who can unmake it. You're stuck with it until you (somehow) completely change the makeup of the court.


*For example:

Justice Beer Bong's "analysis" here just utterly ignores the facts of the case, and the justifications for treating churches differently from grocery stores, and essentially made the legal argument, "Nuh-un! I'm ruling the way I wanna rule!" He lost that time, but this is what you're going to see more of.

The fact that your Christian Taliban says so doesn't change the science - a foetus is not a human being and only the religious right in their zeal ever try to pretend that it is. Of course once it is born and becomes a human being, the right don't want to help them anyway.

Whaaat??:eek::confused::eye-poppi

What does that mean or even come close to having anything to do with the subject at hand???

There's starting to be a lot of talk about that. It's not going to happen as long as Trump lives. Regardless of what the GOP establishment may wish, they are up against a personality cult and that's something that they are not going to break. De Santis can't even hope for a VP slot (with the potential of allowing him to become the power behind the feeble minded throne) because, if he runs a serious primary campaign against Trump, he'll eventually offend Trump and Trump will always hold a grudge against anyone he perceives as not being 100% loyal to the man.

In any case, this is not a Trump problem. This is a GOP rot problem. Any GOP candidate right now (and De Santis in particular) means the end of democracy in the USA. The goal of today's GOP is to retain power at all costs as a minority ruling party. Trump's example has shown them the way forward and they have no scruples in following through (now that they understand what is possible).

Nasty whores (that is, women a.k.a baby incubators) will be punished with babies. That's all that matters. Amirite, ChrisBFRPKY?

You must have missed the part about how one of the rulings from SCOTUS the very day before Dobbs dropped was about how states can regulate concealed carry. The TLDR; is that your premise of firearm regulation being turned into strictly a state concern is false. Also, any and all regulations at the state level in all 50 states are probably going to get tied up in the courts pretty much in perpetuity to figure out what is and what isn't constitutional.

On the news yesterday every single one of those "dems" used the tragedy to peddle and hawk for votes.... and what they do not tell you is that many of the very same people who are now the "dems" have had numerous opportunities in the past to make women's rights to decide their life trajectories into law... yet they never even tried... and that despite them being very cognizant of the relentless concerted organized insidious plot to stack the court of clowns in black robes with agents who will sabotage that human right and more to come.

This is radical centrism in action. The justification is that they want to be seen as the center so and therefore they don't want to back some "leftist" who may not appeal to some hypothetical moderate Republican voter who might be turned. Never mind that, when faced with the choice of voting for a Republican running as a Republican or a Republican running as a Democrat, those who may have been somewhat inclined to vote for a Republican running as a Democrat will be happier voting for the real thing every single time.

This strategy appeared to work during the Bill Clinton times and now it is the only electoral strategy they know. Ultimately, this is how Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at the national level even when they should have the numbers (it's been the case for 2 decades now).

I very much doubt that the corporate tools dems will ever in fact do that... they all serve the same master after all.... it is all a WWE show.

In what sense doesn't it deserve those things? Every system is based on an elite group ruling. The founding fathers wrote about this. If you rely on passively voting, you get a choice between two flavours of whatever the non-passive, organised people decide you are going to get to choose between.

Kayfabe all the way down.

Facts don't matter.

SCOTUS could potentially seize on such a piece of legislation & make the claim that it has legislated fetal personhood. If they do so, the claim that they are obligated (strictly as perfectly fair and impartial judicial actors, of course) to apply constitutional protections to anything from a zygote onward may follow. After that, it's a matter of picking your rights based justification to declare that allowing abortion anywhere in the country is unconstitutional (from 14th Amendment equal protection to 2nd Amendment not being born prevents persons from bearing arms —the specifics don't really matter & they can be all of the above).

What the **** do you even mean?

I agree. The legal justification for not banning abortion in the U.S. and the basis for the Roe v Wade decision was the right to privacy. Not reproductive freedom, bodily autonomy, nothing like that.

And that always seemed a thin twig to perch upon. The ERA languishes and there have been no serious attempts to reboot that effort. Dems could have pushed for legislation codifying the right to an abortion as federal law and used the supremacy clause to force states to allow abortions. But the have not made any serious effort in that regard for some time.

You should get that looked at by a medical professional. It could get infected.

The Dobbs v. Jackson Decision, Annotated

Notable in the above decision is it relies almost fully on historical references to state regulations during a time in our history where women had no right to vote, let alone sit on government seats.

In a way you are right... but... G.W. Bush won by the supreme court of partisans ruling despite losing the majority votes of the people.... and Trump won by the electoral college ruse despite loosing the majority votes of the people.

Also the number of senators being set to two per state is an abject atrocity of undemocratic representation... since some states with a handful of people get two senatorial votes out of 100 while ones with millions of people get the same.

And the gerrymandering chicanery is making sure that despite the majority votes for one party the minority party still gets more congress representatives than the one with the majority of votes.

So the people of the USA are cheated out of their votes all the time.

And that is on the federal level... on the state level there is even more shenanigans that take place... like voting booths not being available in certain areas and striking out piles of votes by some guy deciding to do so... etc. etc.

It is a Banana Republic in many ways.

I think that is exactly what they mean by chanting "make America great again"... and not just about women's emancipation.

What always make me ponder... is how can there be any (sane) women republicans... let alone the other groups.

When organizations send election observers to other countries they are looking for standards to be followed that are not followed in the USA and when they are not followed in these emerging democracies, they call it electoral chicanery.

Trump said God said abortion issues should be resolved by states.

Lovely country you have there, America. The idea that peoples’ rights are protected, or important, is a blatant lie. I am wondering, as an old fart, whether the USA will become recognized as the theocracy it is becoming while I am still alive.

The American FARM is good pastures for its sheep... so long as they keep grazing with their heads in the grass... and not ever notice that the FARMER is not there to take care of them but rather to milk fleece and consume them... and when he protects them from the "wolves" it is not out of love for them.. but rather for his property.

Now of course this has been the state of humanity since farming started... but not many farmers throughout history have been as nice to their sheep as the American farmers... and not many farms have had as good pastures as the American farm.

--- with apologies to George Orwell.

Of course... the rules do not apply to the rules' enforcers and their masters.

Maybe you don't know this, but SCOTUS isn't there to legislate. They exist to determine if the constitution and US laws have been properly interpreted and/or implemented.

Unless they are a bunch of unqualified lying partisans who lied under oath to gain entry so as to sabotage the constitution in service of their sky daddy and TRIBE.

I think the SCOTUS decision was legally correct, but morally reprehensible.

:(

If the last three justices lied about their abortion stances during confirmation hearings, they should be impeached.

That's the end of story. States are free to implement abortion laws as they see fit.

I don't see that as a bad thing.

In that case, why do the judges disagree, and why is this disagreement based on their ideology?

Are you ok with States deciding for themselves whether or not to ban discrimination in housing, education, employment and stores?

It is bad on economic, moral, constitutional and nationalism levels.

Actually it is not... also even the clowns themselves swore under oath that it is not legally correct... and the arguments they used are against other laws.

his ilk are HOPING FOR IT.

It will be like prohibition; on the outside the conservatives will act happy but if the situation arises they will get abortions. Just like when their grandparents wanted a drink - they did so. A system based on states still providing abortions will grow up. Some die hards will try and interfere with that system and most police departments will 'not prioritize' anti-abortion' investigations.

I've been thinking a bit about this, and I think this is an important point. Much of conservative support comes from those who are convinced that "liberal" government is meddlesome, complex, and expensive. But that's really because repression is applied only to certain parties.

I think one way around this would be malicious compliance. If the state owns your uterus, demand in writing permission to use it. Demand written guarantees that your gynecologist may have access to government property. Demand that, if it's illegal to cross state lines for an abortion, the state issue a paper granting you permission to cross state lines without search and seizure. Demand a written declaration of what measures are required or forbidden for a fertile woman to perform on her body in anticipation that an embryo that does not exist but might at some future time will find a welcome. Everything should be in writing. If the state wants to own our bodies, then it damned well better put its money where its mouth is. That should include by default that any medical procedure involving the reproductive system that is required for the health of any person should be the sole responsibility of the government that has asserted ownership.

In a state like Texas, where every neighbor of every potentially pregnant woman apparently has standing to initiate a lawsuit based on the suspicion of abortion, every potentially pregnant woman who is not planning an abortion should be able to phone every neighbor every night to assure them of this fact.

If birth control is made illegal, men should demand in writing permission to wear socks to bed. Demand written codes on what it is and is not legal to wear in case of sex, and be prepared to file complaints against anyone suspected of not following the codes. Hat colors, pajama styles. There should be a written guarantee that premature ejaculation, for example, is not grounds for criminal charges. Demand written clarification of whether vasectomy is permitted. After all, vasectomy is as much a physical barrier to the passage of sperm as other birth control.

Demand that agencies be established to codify and issue permits for activities, and that specifics be established for all of them, and printed. The administration of these laws should be expensive and complex.

If stupidity carried a financial or inconvenience expense to its promoters even a fraction of the emotional, spiritual, cultural expense it imposes on its victims, it would be dead in the water.

Thank goodness I have no family in a red state except for my 'niece' in TX who is really my BF's daughter. I've never set foot in TX and never will. When my parents retired to Spokane in 1984 and my sister moved there after getting back from working in Saudi Arabia, they all moved to OR because they couldn't take the redneck culture there. Spokane is just 20 miles from Idaho, which is ruby red.

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse........