Isn't remarkable how duplicitous Republicans are, the party you support, the so-called "Party of Small Government" that wants the Government to stay out of people's lives, but is quite happy to have that same government...

- Control a woman's right to exercise her own health choices.
- Control a persons right to love/marry/ whom they choose.
- Control the education of young people to prevent them from learning the inconvenient truth about their history.
- Control businesses whose messaging conflicts with the government's messaging.
- Control schools' efforts to prevent transmission of disease by banning mask mandates
- Control business' efforts to keep workers safe by banning vaccine passes and vaccine mandates

This is what American Freedom really looks like, the ripping away of human rights to satisfy a political agenda...

America.. The land of the free (free to do and say anything you like so long as we agree with it)
America.. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, but only if they're white and Christian!

While the rest of the civilized world progresses to greater and greater freedoms and liberties for its peoples, the USA takes a step back towards the dark ages. When the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States, uses the opinions of jurists from centuries ago - opinions that were used to justify the prosecutions and execution of witches, you know they have lost the plot, and the end is near. It won't be long before y'all will be burning witches at the stake again.

They did not lie. They used some phrase such as "settled" which means nothing in legal terms. They just need to look at it again and "settle" it differently!


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...ions-rcna35246

Every little sperm is sacred.

A True^TM Pro-Lifer would ban menstruation.

Not even gonna pretend there's no racism anymore. Of course, if you're a useful idiot like Herschel Walker, they'll continue to pretend.

And we should keep in mind that a number of red states have only banned abortion after a certain point in pregnancy, ranging from six weeks to 15 weeks. Thus, mothers who are determined to kill their babies have between six weeks and 15 weeks to do so in those states.

Ideally, I think abortion should be illegal from the moment of conception, except in cases of rape, incest, and endangerment. But, being the deep purple centrist that I am, I could support allowing abortions at any point before a heartbeat and brain waves are detected in the baby, which is usually no later than week 6 of pregnancy. (FYI, I don't use the word "fetus" because "fetus" is simply the Latin word for "baby.")

I simply cannot see any moral or humane justification for abortion after the baby has a heartbeat and brain activity, except in cases of rape, incest, and endangerment. I think states should encourage rape and incest victims to have their babies and give them up for adoption, but I can understand why many victims would not want to do that.

So laughable that you call yourself a centrist.

Something else I think important to point out. Friday SCOTUS upheld the Mississippi law that bans abortion after fifteen weeks by a 6-3 vote. Then the Court overturned Roe. Two separate decisions. Overturning Roe was by just one vote, 5-4.
Overturning Roe was by one vote. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the other three justices in dissenting. Kavanaugh is considered to have been the swing vote on Roe. Apparently he waffled a bit.

Meanwhile polling continues to show, the majority of the American public support a woman's right to have an abortion as they almost always have.

"Fetus" is Latin for offspring, specifically the offspring of animals, not "baby" (infans) or "child" (pueri).

But regardless, is your not using a word because it had a different meaning in Latin a matter of general principle with you, or just in this one particular case for some reason?

For instance, do you call people who are running for office "candidates," or do you consistently refer to them instead as "whites," because candidus is simply the Latin word for "bright white"?

Another big government right wing extremist happy at the removal of rights and freedoms.

Because it's blaming anyone but the people who actually did the bad thing.

This is I presume also why you support a large increase in taxes and social welfare programs to help the now forced mothers who are desperate enough to wanted have an abortion raise and support children they did not want?
Combined with mandatory sex education in ALL schools, even home school programs and free access to birth control to anyone over 14?

False.
(source)


eta:
Alabama: ban except for mother's health
Arizona: Total ban
Arkansas: ban except for mother's health

...and that's just the A's.

Doesn't this tend to get a bit more complicated if the polls ask what that actually means? If you ask about 2nd trimester that support drops way down. Is this an argument that abortion should be radically restricted in a bunch of liberal states?

Hmmm. I had some trouble deciding which of the two threads I should post in so after tossing a coin, I chose this one.

From the posts that I have read, this is clearly an abortion issue and not a legal issue. Just so that I can understand what the general consensus is on the legal front, let us suppose that this was a more benign issue. The legality of aspirin for example.

So we have a case where the SC rules decades ago that state governments can not ban the use of aspirin (presumably any attempt by the Federal government to ban aspirin would be a different case). This is a clear case of the SC making laws (that aspirin is legal).

Decades later, with new judges on the bench, they review the original ruling and decide that it was a bad ruling. So now the states are free to regulate aspirin again. Is it wrong to allow states to regulate aspirin if the constitution doesn't actually prevent it? Are some states so untrustworthy that we must use the SC to override them - even if we don't live in those states?

I personally feel uneasy at the prospect of unelected judges taking over the role of legislatures. Sometimes they will make a popular decision (as with the original Roe vs Wade) but at other times they will make an unpopular decision like they did this time and nobody can do anything about it.

Yes. Remember slavery? That is exactly where the phrase "states rights" came from.

Er - wasn't there a constitutional amendment that specifically outlawed slavery? I don't recall any SC ruling that emancipated slaves (at least not prior to the 14th amendment).

Not a great analogy, because one, generally speaking, does not choose to have a headache in any situation.

To be an appropriate analogy, you would need an activity that people often choose to engage in, but can happen by accident or can be forced upon them. Then the legal question is whether or not they can choose to stop engaging in that activity.

At the risk of being naïve, if popularity is the key thing... why even have a Constitution? Constitutions, if they are worth anything, make it difficult for a legislature, elected by the popular will, to get their way. Surely half the point of having a Constitution and an SC is to frustrate the popular will?

I saw a picture of a woman holding a sign that said "LIFE BEGINS AT EJACULATION".

It wasn't meant to be a "great" analogy. It was just meant to be a neutral question so that we could focus on the legal aspect.

It is one thing to have a constitution that limits the power of the government but quite another to have a court that arbitrarily does the same.

It would be, if the Supreme Court hadn't become a political tool of the GOP, interpreting the Constitution at the whim of the evangelicals and the NRA. Now that concept of precedent is out the window, there is no objective understanding of what is constitutional. It'll change every generation or so as we relitigate rights under different courts.

At this point, the Constitution is about as authoritative as a religious text. It will be interpreted by every sect differently but each will have 100% surety that only they have the True understanding.

That has always been the case. You think when progressive justices where "discovering" new right in the Constitution that was untainted by politics? They were genuinely finding things that were objectively their rather than seeing patterns in tea leaves? Did they often discover new protections that they profoundly disagreed with?

The Constitution has no meaning in the absence of a culture to interpret it. That cultures normative assumptions flesh out the Constitution and make it work. This has always been the case. For a long time the Justices were WASPS and you had their cultural assumptions interpreting the Constitution, then it became much more heavily Jewish and Catholic and the Constitution was interpreted differently. If the justices do not come from a fixed group with a more or less fixed set of cultural assumptions, then the interpretation of the Constitution is necessarily going to swing wildly. This was true when the decisions you like were getting made, and it is true now.

Fundamentally, the rule of law is incompatible with a truly multicultural country since different cultures have different ideas about what is reasonable.

There is no Constitution without the court. The Constitution has no meaning without the court. It is just symbols on a page written in funny old timey handwriting. Obviously a court that has different cultural assumptions to you is going to produce results that you feel are unreasonable, just as the court in 1973 produced a result that seemed unreasonable to some other people. This is one of the fundamental obstacles to centralising power.

If she wanted to start an anti-masturbation, anti-promiscuous sex drive, I would think she'd get quite a bit of buy in from the pro-life crowd.

:thumbsup:

It has always been possible to overturn precedent. It's not like this is some shocking "never happened before in the common law" occurrence. The law is not built on precedent being being irreversible. Are you outraged at the damage to the law done by Brown v. Board of Education?

Perhaps so, but the Supreme Court did rule against segregation, laws forbidding interracial marriage, and laws forbidding birth control, decisions that many of us would consider consistent with American values, but which the states were, obviously, not prepared to do.

Unreasonable to a minority. And now that minority has finally got the reversal it wanted. Is that how a society progresses, by being held back by the minority? Is that democratic? Is a centuries old Constitution forever to be rigidly adhered to? Even when the framers explicitly recognized the necessity of its review and amendment at least every generation?

It seems to me that many folk think the SC is required to interpret the Constitution in the way Bible studies groups try to divine the meaning of the Biblical text. As though there is some as yet not fully divined understanding. Such thinking overlooks the real purpose of a Constitution; the provision of guidance as society evolves. To keep true to basic tenets while accommodating the changing mores over generations. Otherwise a nation might as well remain frozen in time, like a Amish village.

This revocation of a right borne of popular sentiment, and still popular, recognizing the primacy of a woman to make a decision for herself on a matter of the most personal nature, is a heinous step backward. A revealing lurch toward religious control, where bodily autonomy is hijacked. Where the supposed disdain for government intrusion is revealed as an outright lie. Other rights hard won are soon to fall. The path to the Christian version of modern Iran under the Muslim Mullahs is becoming well paved. A State religion will soon enough be implemented. All hail our Christian overlords!

Sarah Huckabee Sanders after her gubernatorial primary win: "We will make sure that when a kid is in the womb, they're as safe as they are in a classroom."

Video in link

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/...02529483640832

Sure, but it hasn't been amended to create these rights. What we are talking about is the judicial branch "discovering" new rights in the constitution, and "discovering" that rights they thought were in the Constitution are not in fact there. For the past 100 years that process has mostly favoured progressives, this is an unusual instance where it hasn't.

Isn't that how Roe vs Wade was decided? A new right was discovered that nobody had thought was there? Or Brown vs Board of Education. Interpretation of the Constitution is just like interpreting the Bible.

Who interprets what that guidance means in an ever changing world?

Right, but if the Constitution itself is going to be reinterpreted for each generation, then each generation needs to have some common agreement on "the good". There clearly is no such agreement. The rule of law breaks down in a truly multicultural country because nobody will agree what the right accommodations are to changing times.

So you think. Other people disagree. The Constitution and the SC are intended, and functioning as, a restraint on the power of the popular will. If you want the popular will to be supreme, then you really don't want to live in a Constitutional Republic.

You need a unifying cultural set of moral assumptions for the system to work. If you strip that out it was expected to fail from the start.

Your vision of progress isn't an intrinsic part of the direction of the system. If your vision of progress doesn't win, it doesn't mean that the system is broken.

Comment from Barbara Streisand.
Religious dogma is the reason some states have outlawed abortion for victims of rape or incest. Oklahoma governor Kevin Stitt said the quiet part out loud recently in an interview with Fox News in defending no exceptions for victims of rape or incest..

It's really adding up, isn't it. :(:mad:

Arm every fetus with an AR-15?

Spoken like a person who doesn't have a uterus or vagina.

Technically no pregnancy ever occurred without a male ejaculating.

Why would they do that? They have not done it with firearms. They'll rule for "state's rights" if it serves their ideology and if it serves their ideology they'll also rule for expansive federal powers and against "state's rights" even if it conflicts with some precedent that they may have set the day before.

Seriously, do you really think that if we ever get a federal abortion ban & it gets challenged the SCOTUS will call it a state matter & strike it down?

I saw a bumper-sticker: "Life begins at conception and ends at Planned Parenthood."

Possible actions by Congress:
NC scholar: With Roe gone, Congress should suspend the Supreme Court Reading the whole article is worthwhile. There's a lot more I didn't quote.

Also, the comments are full of right-wing trolls. They could use a few more intelligent replies.