TX opinion on Roe in Feb 2022 You need to be careful reading the article because sometimes they are talking about everyone and sometimes they are talking about the sub-section that would agree with overturning Roe.

The majority: 50% vs 47% did not want to see Roe overturned.


In addition a lot of people misunderstand the so called "heartbeat" at six weeks is not an actual heart beating. It is a sound the sensitive equipment picks up of heart cells beating. There is no heart in a 6-week old fetus. I wish the news would be more clear about this deception.

And that poll shows that Zig's 8 year old survey is not the best indicator of current beliefs, representing a 5% jump in Texans in favor of abortion being legal, and a 3% drop in the number of people wanting abortion to be illegal.

Also if you read the fine print 100% of Republicans are in favor of abortion for their mistresses and the underage children they rape and knock up.

It does seem that Republicans want abortion to be legal for men to have their mistresses et al do, but not legal for women to do on their own.

They were fully aware the same that when a cop pulls over someone they think might be a drug dealer but claim the reason for the stop was they didn't signal far enough in advance for a lane change. Heck, RGB voted for letting that sort of thing go on. Oblivious formalism isn't bipartisan.

We built this system. The same blind formalism that the Senate used to try to ask that question without asking it was used by the judges not answering it when they answered it.

It's just not a substantive issue. If we are using this as an example of how this know-nothing approach to reality has rotted the courts and political discourse in general, fine. That this example is somehow outside the lines of what happens on a regular basis notsomuch.

You laugh but "Abortion is legal with your male guardian's permission" being where this...

A) Winds up
B) Where the Republican are TRYING to get it to wind up

... would shock me exactly zero percent.

I'd assume that some number of them see those pregnancies as gifts of their bodily essence to be protected and supported with full force of law.

If their own kid gets knocked up, well... that might be closer to 100% especially if they are the ones that did it.

But again this is old news. The whole "The only good abortion is my abortion" and "Oh you see I'm different, I just made a mistake, I'm not some irresponsible slut like those other women" is well established.

Yup.

It all comes back to conservative ideology being about preserving a state where there is an in group the law serves but does not bind and the out group it binds but does not serve.

Anything that fits into that dynamic should never surprise anyone. Hypocrisy is a feature.

Not quite right. It was the Independent Counsels office that defined the sex. Per wikipedia:

That was heartbreaking. It happened to her not once, but twice. I cannot imagine the emotional pain of knowing you are carrying a dead baby around for another month and a half. She was 7 1/2 months pregnant when the babies died in utero. She almost died herself because they wouldn't remove it earlier and it was literally filling her body with toxins.

This also happened to Barbara Eden of I Dream of Jeannie fame. She was almost 8 months pregnant when her baby died in 1971. She also was made to carry it for another 6 weeks.

These ******** who would make a woman do that should be run through a wood chipper feet first and slowly.

When women's choices...or not... are being largely controlled by men, it's not surprising.

After seven months or so, is "abortion" really the right word? When does it become induced labor or emergency caesarian?

I think it's called a stillbirth at that point, not an abortion. Labor can be induced or happen on its own.

Sure. They concealed their true intent.

But I don't agree that the Senators couldn't ask that question directly. Had the judges been evasive about a direct question then that would have been a sign that they were prepared to overturn Roe vs Wade. But because the Senators went softly soflty with the questions, the Judges got away wit concealing their intentions. So they share the blame with the judges.

You can redefine a lie to mean concealment if you wish but that doesn't make it so.

I suspect that even national legislation would be swatted down by the SCOTUS.

Having ended Roe vs Wade, it seems unlikely that they would let congress interfere with that decision.

True, though the time-scale changed from age to age.

Well, it's complicated. And mainly down to the foibles of various popes.

In Ye Olden Days the generally accepted belief was that a fetus/embryo acquired a soul at "quickening". This happened at (based on Aristotle who appears to have just Made It Up) 40 days (male) or 90 days (female). This, BTW, is pretty much still the general belief within Islam, at 120 days.
Other, pre-xian, cultures and religions tended towards ensoulment at birth (the 'first breath' standard) or occasionally at conception.

Aristotelianism was incorporated into xianity by the Church Fathers (e.g. Aquinas, Augustine, Jerome and Tertullian) and if you look at the history of the discussion on quickening and ensoulment it's a mess of arguments between these believers and those to wanted to incorporate the rival Pythagorian doctrine of ensoulment at conception.

About a thousand years now passes and we reach Aquinas who reignited the debate, paralleling the reintegration of Aristotelian learning into Europe, by being pretty definitive that ensoulment was well after birth. Hence abortion was, as in he Hebrew tradition, a misdemeanor.

Matters continued along these lines for a couple more centuries until Sixtus V who, in 1588, issued the Bull Effraenatam, which subjected those that carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with automatic excommunication and the punishment by civil authorities applied to murderers.

This lasted three years until his successor Gregory XIV limited that mandatory excommunication to abortion of a "formed" fetus. This may demonstrate Jesuit influence as the doctrine of ensoulment after birth was pretty common among them.

Another century passes and Innocent XI condemns the Jesuit teachings but doesn't actually promulgate the doctrine of ensoulment at conception.

Finally we reach the nineteenth century and the medical organisations (such as the nascent AMA) who engaged in a power-grab over midwives, whom they really didn't like and blamed for carrying out terminations. Suddenly civil society started getting in on the act and the first severe restrictions on abortions started being enacted. That's when (in 1869) Pius IX staged an abrupt about-turn in four centuries of church doctrine, and Canon Law, with Apostolicae Sedis, and re-enacted the penalty of excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy,
This was very much down to the man himself, who'd undergone an equally abrupt change in views following certain matters in 1848, like being chased out of Rome by the republican revolutionaries and only returning with the French Army.
He spent the rest of his life descending into knee-jerk conservatism, condemning liberalism, modernism, moral relativism, secularisation, separation of church and state and other such dangerous ideas.
Abortion was really only a tiny part of this process.

Hope this helps.

Probably depending on the legislation. I doubt that they'd rule against a nation wide ban.

I was x years old when I discovered that lies of omission are often much worse than outright falsity.

Among the many reasons, it is the side diversion of them getting to object and quibble over whether they "really" lied and drag the discussion away from the point, accuse the other person of making attacks against their character, etc.

In response to complaints by Kavanaugh that demonstrators confronted him at dinner, a columnist observes that there's no Constitutional right to eat dinner either.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...rotest-satire/

I think (not to say it matters to what they do) that they would have no more reason to rule against a nation wide permission. Their judgment is, technically, that the Constitution does not address the issue at all.

Ha ha. Yeah, I know. It will when they want it to.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

A pregnant woman in Texas is contesting a traffic ticket for driving alone in an HOV lane by claiming that according to SCOTUS there were 2 "persons" in the car. If the courts want to be consistent, I would think that they would have to rule in her favor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...n-hov-bottone/

I wouldn't.

Then you haven't seen any of these hearings where they were asked directly. They never answer. They fall back on the excuse they can't discuss how they might rule on cases before them.

But I've told you that 3 times now and you just ignore that inconvenient fact.

Supreme Court Nominee Barrett Declines to Answer Questions on Key Court Cases Here's the like hell part:

Sadly yes it does.

Legal Eagle has posted another YouTube on Roe vs Wade ("What Next?").

Basically, with such inconsistent reasons being given, every unenumerated right from the last century is up for grabs:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

If you can criminalize residents of your State for what they do in another State where that act is not a Crime, Las Vegas would lose its reason for being.

This 100%. I have some sympathy for the right-to-life crowd although abortion is not really a big issue for me. That said, yes, travel to another state for whatever reason must be allowed.

Don't give them ideas!!

It's mostly men who want to gamble, so that will always be legal, no matter who much they have to twist their logic.

So one would think, and so we assume will remain the case, but one cannot entirely predict what craziness will actually happen any more.

Since privacy has been removed from the table, there is, presumably, no right for a woman to conceal her condition except the fifth amendment, which might not not help if other means are used to detect it. And though there are laws concerning interstate commerce and the like, there is actually no Constitutional statement that explicitly allows unrestricted interstate travel. It would be outrageous and ridiculous, but not, it seems, unconstitutional, to control movement across a border. Anti-discrimination laws might make it difficult to apply only to women of fertile age, but probably not impossible. One could, after all, screen everyone, even if the goal is only to catch pregnant women, as we are now screened at airports.

We can, I suppose, presume that travel and return is the issue here, but remember that, as far as I can determine, the Constitution fairly explicitly supports the fugitive slave laws, which apply, not to travel and return, but migration. Slavery itself was abolished, and the laws repealed, but I do not think there ever was a Constitutional challenge to the basic principle that a person deemed criminal in one state could be extradited from another in which they are not.

It's pretty far fetched to suggest that a person from one state could be extradited and prosecuted for moving to another in order to escape repressive laws, but these days, with this court, I think we should never be too complacent about how far the long dong of the law might reach.

This is all ridiculous of course. Ha ha, it will never happen here. It never does. Ha ha.

That why Las Vegas was established as a gambling mecca in the '50s, when gambling was generally illegal, but it hasn't been true for a long time. There are casinos in almost every state.
https://www.casinousa.com/map

That just means that abortion is a crime for those who are too poor to get it done in another state. I'd call it discriminatory.

I was being discreet and did not mention the number of Nevada counties that have legalized prostitution.

It is still true. Gambling is still prohibited in almost every state. Casinos outside of Nevada are almost always on Indian reservations, where state laws prohibiting gambling don't apply. But as with out-of-state residents visiting Nevada, state laws cannot reach where they do not have sovereignty.

which brings up an interesting question: suppose States criminalize citizens getting an abortion outside their State - if that happens on a Reservation, would such a law work?

Note: Some Indian Tribes have made it clear that they don't intend to host abortion clinics, probably because they already suffer a lot of hate and violence.

Wasn't there a recent SC ruling that pushed back on the notion that reservations weren't constricted by state law? I dimly recall reading something in the last couple of months.