I think pretty much everyone is pleased that Plessy, Dred Scott and Korematsu are no longer law of the land.

Hospitals where I live are deciding to no longer make emergency contraceptives available to sexual assault victims.

So they can't prevent fertilization or implantation in time, and then the law says they can't use an abortofacient, either.

And Dobbs is similar to the three you cited. They all removed rights and freedoms from individuals.

And this is just one reason why all hormonal contraception will eventually be in the cross-sights:
https://www.cecinfo.org/icec-publications/using-oral-birth-control-pills-ec/

https://www.uptodate.com/contents/im...Key=PI%2F74604

Sure, as long as your aim is to deflect blame from those who had the power to control who became a Justice to those who did not have the power to stop it, I guess.

I don't think it was bunk. They were using the term "settled law" to avoid really answering the question. And the idiot Dems didn't press the issue enough, or if they did then the SC candidates just went with "I can't answer a hypothetical". They were asked one question, but answered a different one.

Not honest, but not really lying either.

Could you stick to a point and follow it through? Argument is impossible if when somebody replies to a point, you shift what the conversation is about and treat their reply as if it was about your new topic. This wasn't a discussion about blame. I don't blame the Republican's for pushing through those Justices, of course they were going to. The discussion was about whether the Democrats who asked them about abortion were mislead by the lying judges. They weren't mislead because the whole process of asking questions is pretend.

The "idiot" Dems all voted against the nominees. It's not like the Dems fell for the evasiveness, or that the Reps would have changed their minds had any Dem stood up and demanded a plain yes or no answer.

Again, let's not deflect blame for these Justices from the party who voted lockstep for these candidates to the party who voted lockstep against them but lost anyway.

Depends on who you count as an individual. If a fetus is an individual worthy of consideration, then Dobbs has significantly protected their rights and freedoms.

Where do you live (as in what state, I don't want your home address)?

Idiot Dems nothing. This line of questioning about Roe vs Wade has been going round and around for decades. Do you really think they didn't force an answer because they are not clever enough, and they repeat the mistake for Justice after Justice? They asked the questions they intended to ask, to the depth they intended to probe, and got the answers they knew they were going to get. The purpose of those questions isn't to detect justices who, should the stars align, would overturn Roe vs Wade. They know that already before the first question is asked.

The questions and answers are almost always performative.

The conversation was not about whether the party who had no power to prevent these judges from becoming Justices was fooled. That's simply what the people trying to shift blame onto them want to claim.

Of course you don't blame the Reps for pushing through the Justices, but also of course you do blame the Dems for not stopping what they had no power to stop.

It allows the people who fundraise and campaign off them (Democrats and Republicans) overthrowing Roe vs Wade to continue to do so, and it allows people for whom pretending to believe they would not repeal it is more politically useful, to continue pretending. Getting a specific statement on it is no help to anyone.

No. I haven't blamed anyone. That wasn't what the discussion is about.

Yes, that is certainly what the discussion is about. Right now you're doing a "bothsides" dance, pointing out how bad the Dems are for their supposed performance questions while deliberately ignoring the fact that the Dems were not fooled. Apparently only one, single Senator was fooled by those answers, and that was Susan Collins, of the "Trump has learned his lessons" gullibility award. And she is a Republican.

Of course, the obvious consequence is the question of whether someone without functioning kidneys has a right to a functioning kidney from someone who has two good kidneys.

The difference is your mum can still punish you for being a smart alec. These justices got away with implying that they would not change Roe vs Wade when their intention was the opposite.

As I pointed out to shuttIt, they "got away" with nothing. They fooled no one. Well, except for one famously gullible Senator on their own side.

Susan Collins knows exactly what she is doing. Despite her "disappointment" and "outrage" following the leaked Roe ruling, when a belated abortion protection bill was put to a vote she said nay.

If that's true, then why is there all this talk of perjury? What did any of the SC candidates say that was perjury?

Very often people, particularly politicians say these things performatively. They don't actually think it was perjury. They aren't actually going to do anything about it. It's an opportunity for a storyline they think is going to play, so they run with it. That's all it is. People shouldn't listen to politicians, or opinion journalists as if they are giving us their actual opinions.

I wanted to circle back to this one. So...the Dems who fundraise and campaign off of the threats that Republicans would overthrow Roe v. Wade were just posturing, you say? In a thread discussing the fact that the Reps actually did overthrow Roe v. Wade, even?

And...all those Dems who campaign and fundraise and (more importantly) vote against those Justices because they claimed that Reps want to overthrow Roe v. Wade, those Dems were just actually finding it politically useful to pretend what they said would happen, what they voted against happening, they were pretending it wouldn't happen, you say? Again, in a thread discussing how what they literally said would happen actually did happen?

Yeah, tell me again how this isn't just chaff to deflect blame from the Republicans who also knew this would happen, and forced it through explicitely so that it (and much worse) would happen for decades to come.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisond...h=7a8a361f5420

Do you have a link for this? My right wing co-workers keep insisting stuff like this could never ever happen.

The fact that the Democrats didn't believe Drunky Mcrapeface or the Stepford wife when they said Roe v. Wade was "settled" doesn't necessarily mean that Trump's nominees weren't LYING. Its still a lie even if not everyone believes you.

For the Oracle.

Kansas City area health system stops providing Plan B in Missouri because of abortion ban

It's not widespread, but it's starting to happen.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...ption-85963071

Now the SC has gutted the EPA

I recently subscribed to r/scotus. This was the last few days of the session and the decisions have been coming fast and furious.

SC has also did not put a stay on a "Independent State Legislature" theory case, which is a Trumpian theory that state legislatures can pick who won a federal election in their state, despite the actual vote. (My characterization may not be 100% accurate. IANAL)

I keep on telling you people, there is no peaceful solution to this.
You will have to choose between your freedom and your pacifism.

Hey, c'mon, it's now paradise! No clean air to breathe, no right to privacy, no right to marry who you choose, and best of all, way more ******* guns in public!

No bodily autonomy. (You don’t need two healthy lungs, do you?)

Sure there is. Win elections. Get the laws you want passed. Amend the constitution if it's sufficiently important.

What you really mean is that you can't achieve your policy goals through ordinary democratic methods because they aren't actually sufficiently popular.

I assume you are referring to the current Republican strategy?

Yes, because the GOP now is the party which stands for "ordinary democratic methods".

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

No, it's not starting to happen. Even the headline should have clued you in.

St. Luke’s Health Kansas City said in a statement Wednesday that it would resume offering the medication known as the morning after pill, a day after it told The Kansas City Star that its Missouri hospitals would halt emergency contraception.

It did so after the state's attorney general issued a statement stating unequivicolly that emergency contraception is not illegal under an abortion ban that was enacted minutes after Friday's U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade. The Missouri law bans all abortions except in cases of medical emergency.

I don't know. There doesn't look like any possibility of anybody having the support to resolve this by changing the constitution. There seems to be an increasing push to not accept the legitimacy of laws from the other side. There seems to be an increasing trend to accuse the other side of cheating to win the election. It'll all work itself out somehow, but "how" is going to be interesting.

This isn't about parties. It's about you. Do YOU believe in democracy? dudalb apparently doesn't. If you only believe in democracy when you're winning elections, then you don't really believe in democracy.

Well, yes. Because no side is sufficiently popular right now.

Which is precisely why this issue is better handled by the legislature than by the courts.

I don't think that that is going to do much to relieve the pressure overall. The whole game since the 60s, maybe even the 30s has been to push social change federally. That has built up a heck of a lot of expectation and power. If we are looking at it in isolation of the forces and pressures involved, I agree with you. I am not altogether sure that that is going to be an acceptable answer.

Too out there for a response? How about forced blood donation?

Sorry, at that point, it wouldn't be a "donation".

How about forced blood harvesting to save people having surgery or suffering from some form of traumatic blood loss? Since Dobbs strikes down unenumerated rights based on Due Process, American citizens no longer have a right to bodily autonomy. If you can save one or more lives by forcing another individual through a procedure they'll probably live through, where is the legal or constitutional boundary?

Didn't we go through this with Covid vaccines? The federal government seemed to be relatively able to put people under a lot of pressure to accept medical procedures that violated their bodily autonomy in the service of the greater good.

Sure, and there is an argument to be made that, under emergency conditions, rights can be temporarily suspended so the country can deal with the crisis. Even then, no one was forced to take a vaccine. They could opt to not take one, but were then limited on where they could go and what they could participated in.

This isn't that. This is the permanent removal of the right to bodily autonomy. If one's state makes a law that abortion is illegal and that it is illegal to go across state lines to have an abortion, a pregnant person has no legal option.

Well, the GOP has pretty much abandoned Democrcy anyway...

The US has been in a state of emergency since 1979. That is business as usual. You think, if they what ever their reason for wanting to do something like this wouldn't also be an emergency, continually extended like covid was? Implementing it through government would be the hard way though.

People were losing their jobs over the vaccine. We are living in a world now where government and global corporations work hand in glove. There is little need for the government to force you to do things, when they can just say how nice it would be if your employer threatened to fire you, or maybe close you bank account, if you don't do what they want.

I'm not sure that a state could make a law saying you couldn't cross state lines to do something that was legal in another state.

In the latter case it is potentially worse, if officials look to prevention. It is, after all, unknown what a person's reason for travel is, unless it is monitored and controllled. A pregnant person or even a potentially pregnant person could be denied what we have cmplacently considered common freedom, which is not explicit.

We have always assumed that the Constitution guarantees the right to travel between states without search, seizure and intrusion, but like many such issues it is not explicit. The fourteenth amendment seems to suggest it, but a raging originalist might find it not really there., and though the abolition of slavery ended the need for Black people to show papers, the mechanism is not explicitly abolished.

Ha ha ha, couldn't happen here....!

People were losing their lives fighting over the vaccine, but you're missing the point: There is no longer any Constitutional barrier to blood or organ harvesting. The right that protected us from actions like that was the foundation of Roe and it is now gone. If the state decides it needs one of your kidneys or your body after you die, nothing prevents them from codifying it into law and making it happen.

He gets the point. He's only pretending not to (partly because he's perfectly fine with it).

Maybe. Do all protections have to be federal and tied to constitutional rights? If it's a big issue, it might well be much easier for the states where it is an issue to ban it.

My predictions of massive violence amounting to a second civil War are not so crazy now, are they?