Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS - Page 8

wareyin · 30th June 2022, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Now the SC has gutted the EPA

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!

Upchurch · 30th June 2022, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by wareyin

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?)

Ziggurat · 30th June 2022, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

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

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.

Garrison · 30th June 2022, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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?

cosmicaug · 30th June 2022, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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

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

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ziggurat · 30th June 2022, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

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

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.

shuttlt · 30th June 2022, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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 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.

Ziggurat · 30th June 2022, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

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

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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.

Ziggurat · 30th June 2022, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I don't know. There doesn't look like any possibility of anybody having the support to resolve this by changing the constitution.

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.

shuttlt · 30th June 2022, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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.

Upchurch · 30th June 2022, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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.

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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.

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?

shuttlt · 30th June 2022, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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.

Upchurch · 30th June 2022, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

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.

dudalb · 30th June 2022, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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

shuttlt · 30th June 2022, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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.

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.

bruto · 30th June 2022, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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.

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....!

Upchurch · 30th June 2022, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

People were losing their jobs over the vaccine.

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.

cosmicaug · 30th June 2022, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

[/b]
Well, the GOP has pretty much abandoned Democrcy anyway...

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

shuttlt · 30th June 2022, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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.

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.

dudalb · 30th June 2022, 03:12 PM

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

dudalb · 30th June 2022, 03:14 PM

I never thought I would say this, but I would support BIden saying, vis a vis the EPA decision:

"Mr Roberts has made his decision. Let him enforce it".

Upchurch · 30th June 2022, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

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.

What predictions? States with anti-abortion laws are already forcing people to use their bodies to save “individuals”, as Zig puts it, who aren’t even legally people.

Segnosaur · 30th June 2022, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Sure there is. Win elections.

Great... all the democrats have to do is overcome the gerrymandering and voter suppression taking place in various red states, limit the influence of "big money" campaign donors, deal with an electoral college that seems to give more preference to cows than people, and magically keep countries like Russia from interfering in future elections.

I'm sure the supreme court would be more than willing to help with some of those. Oh, wait, they already had their say, and their response was "go ahead and suppress all those minority votes and gerrymander away. We don't care."

Quote:

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.

At the risk of speaking for dudalb, I rather suspect he DOES believe in democracy. He just seems to have problems with elements of the American system that are currently being exhibited, which is no longer characterized as a 'full democracy' and is rapidly going down the toilet.

slyjoe · 30th June 2022, 05:22 PM

In related news, the SC didn't take up NY vaccine mandate order.

Clarence Thomas, on an abortion-related roll, diseented:

Quote:

In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas expressed support Thursday for a debunked claim that all Covid vaccines are made with cells from “aborted children.”

I seriously think Thomas has jumped the shark.

ETA: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...abor-rcna36156

Segnosaur · 30th June 2022, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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.

First of all, the fact that the a hospital (an organization that probably has decent legal experts on staff) was concerned about dispensing the morning after pill should make a rational person a bit nervous, since it indicates a law that is vague.

Secondly... why should anyone trust the Attorney general? He's a Republican... a member of the party that has decided that women cannot control their own bodies. It certainly would not be out of character for them to change their opinion in the near future if the members of Y'all Quaeda raise a big-enough fuss.

shuttlt · 30th June 2022, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by slyjoe

In related news, the SC didn't take up NY vaccine mandate order.

Clarence Thomas, on an abortion-related roll, diseented:

I seriously think Thomas has jumped the shark.

ETA: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...abor-rcna36156

Could you explain how he is wrong? The only quote they have from him in the article is "because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children". The article goes on to explain "The fetal tissue used in these processes came from elective abortions that happened decades ago. But the cells have since replicated many times, so none of the original tissue is involved in the making of modern vaccines.".

They add in a claim that the cells that are currently being used are from foetal tissue and debunk his statement based on that. Their quote from him doesn't make that claim though. They also equivocate from his statement of "developed using" to "manufactured from".

This is pretty typical of the way fact checkers operate where they debunk a claim that is more specific, or otherwise altered, from the statement that they are ostensibly debunking.

Does he actually make the claim they debunk anywhere?

Skeptic Ginger · 30th June 2022, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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.

WTF are you talking about?

Have you been living under a rock for the last 25 years? The GOP is the better marketers and horrible legislators. The Democrats are terrible marketers and they can't get much passed the party of 'blocking every ******* thing whether it was originally their idea or not and whether it is good for the country or not'.

Mitch McConnell has been as bad for the country as Drumpf.

Perhaps you could describe this magical democracy you believe is possible when the minority is running the country.

Skeptic Ginger · 30th June 2022, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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.

Yeah..no. Do you mean the majority just doesn't have a big enough super-majority to get past the minority?

Skeptic Ginger · 30th June 2022, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

I never thought I would say this, but I would support BIden saying, vis a vis the EPA decision:

"Mr Roberts has made his decision. Let him enforce it".

That's good for the EPA crap but I believe it may be working for the Alito in charge of abortions too.

There is at least one prosecutor in TX balking at enforcing the abortion ban. Remember the sheriffs that wouldn't enforce mask mandates? Instead of a civil war what we might end up with are police departments selectively enforcing laws. With a disrespected SCOTUS we are closer to that kind of breakup of the country.

Skeptic Ginger · 30th June 2022, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by slyjoe

In related news, the SC didn't take up NY vaccine mandate order.

Clarence Thomas, on an abortion-related roll, diseented:

I seriously think Thomas has jumped the shark.

ETA: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...abor-rcna36156

Think about it, his wife has come out publicly professing CTs. I'm not the least bit surprised to hear that he believes any number of ignorant things.

slyjoe · 30th June 2022, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Could you explain how he is wrong? The only quote they have from him in the article is "because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children". The article goes on to explain "The fetal tissue used in these processes came from elective abortions that happened decades ago. But the cells have since replicated many times, so none of the original tissue is involved in the making of modern vaccines.".

They add in a claim that the cells that are currently being used are from foetal tissue and debunk his statement based on that. Their quote from him doesn't make that claim though. They also equivocate from his statement of "developed using" to "manufactured from".

This is pretty typical of the way fact checkers operate where they debunk a claim that is more specific, or otherwise altered, from the statement that they are ostensibly debunking.

Does he actually make the claim they debunk anywhere?

I see your point.

However, the plaintiffs were OK with vaccines developed in the same way; the cell lines were using in testing the mRNA vaccine, not in manufacturing it. So explain how this should qualify for a religious exemption?

cmikes · 30th June 2022, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

I never thought I would say this, but I would support BIden saying, vis a vis the EPA decision:

"Mr Roberts has made his decision. Let him enforce it".

Spoken like a true Stalinist. "How many battalions does the Pope have?"

Stacyhs · 30th June 2022, 06:10 PM

Florida judge rules state's 15 week abortion ban violates the "privacy" clause of FL's constitution. He'll issue statewide injunction. DeSantis' office says it will appeal to state's conservative SC to reverse existing precedent regarding FL' right to privacy.

Looks like reversing he right to privacy has become the GOP's baby.

Ziggurat · 30th June 2022, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Secondly... why should anyone trust the Attorney general?

Because he's the attorney general. And by making this public statement, he has committed his office to that position. He cannot prosecute people for doing what he said was OK.

Delphic Oracle · 30th June 2022, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by slyjoe

I see your point.

However, the plaintiffs were OK with vaccines developed in the same way; the cell lines were using in testing the mRNA vaccine, not in manufacturing it. So explain how this should qualify for a religious exemption?

Because their "sincerely held religious belief something something."

Judgement in favor of the plaintiff.

Case dismissed.

The Great Zaganza · 30th June 2022, 10:00 PM

many religious groups, Jews among them, have the sincerely held religious belief that they should be able to get an abortion if it's the best for the pregnant person.

The SC doesn't give a **** about any religion but their own.

Bob001 · 30th June 2022, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by cmikes

Spoken like a true Stalinist. "How many battalions does the Pope have?"

The reference is to a remark attributed to Andrew Jackson.
https://quotes.yourdictionary.com/author/quote/567967

Skeptic Ginger · 30th June 2022, 11:02 PM

Jon Stewart's podcast was very informative today. His guests are three female law professors and they know a lot about the history, this court, the religious right, and more. It's close to 45min long. I found every bit of it interesting.

Quote:

Roe v. Wade has been overturned. So now what the hell are we supposed to do? The hosts of the Strict Scrutiny podcast — law professors Leah Litman, Melissa Murray, and Kate Shaw — are back to help Jon process the shocking decision. Writers Kris Acimovic and Tocarra Mallard also weigh in on why the Democrats answer to this crisis seems to be giving them $15.

The link in case you want to watch it outside of the forum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twb_v78C1q4

If you want to watch it here or just sample it, here you go:

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

Suddenly · 1st July 2022, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

I never thought I would say this, but I would support BIden saying, vis a vis the EPA decision:

"Mr Roberts has made his decision. Let him enforce it".

As soon as RBG turned out to not be a highlander this is where it was heading. Packing the court was the best option, but that time has far passed in part because we listened to people who are way too emotionally invested in the sanctity of the Supreme Court and who failed to comprehend that it's now gone fully rogue and back and forth packing and repacking making the court way less coherent is still a win.

The only thing that requires the other branches to listen to the court are the same sort of norms the GOP has been using as toilet paper to their ends. Which is why they need to do this. They probably half-assed do this as to abortion in that abortion meds are FDA approved and there is some issue with state statutes that make FDA approved medicines illegal. They will be similarly cute with regulations somehow. Supremacy clause, etc.

This will eventually come to naught because we are effectively Iran; a political structure operating under the approval of a council of religious extremists mostly concerned with maintaining their group's hegemony over their people. It's just developing slowly but will speed up as dark money pacs ramp up and go full speed at manufacturing cases to get issues in front of the court.

This was always the danger of framing Supreme Court justices as priests handing down received wisdom as to the meaning of the constitution.

Brainster · 1st July 2022, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by slyjoe

In related news, the SC didn't take up NY vaccine mandate order.

Clarence Thomas, on an abortion-related roll, diseented:

I seriously think Thomas has jumped the shark.

ETA: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...abor-rcna36156

It's the lying media as usual. Thomas was quoting the petitioners:

Quote:

Petitioners are 16 healthcare workers who served New York communities throughout the COVID–19 pandemic. They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines de-
rived from aborted children.

And that particular claim isn't exactly incorrect, even according to NBC News:

Quote:

Pfizer and Moderna used fetal cell lines early in their Covid vaccine development to test the efficacy of their formulas, as other vaccines have in the past. The fetal tissue used in these processes came from elective abortions that happened decades ago. But the cells have since replicated many times, so none of the original tissue is involved in the making of modern vaccines.

So they were derived from abortions, just many years ago and they've since been replicated, so it doesn't really count?

30th June 2022, 12:19 PM	#282
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 33,430	Originally Posted by wareyin 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?)
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

30th June 2022, 12:59 PM	#283
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,001	Originally Posted by dudalb I keep on telling you people, there is no peaceful solution to this. You will have to choose between your freedom and your pacifism. 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.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

30th June 2022, 01:14 PM	#284
Garrison Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: UK Posts: 5,892	Originally Posted by Ziggurat 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?
	__________________ So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/ And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX

30th June 2022, 01:17 PM	#285
cosmicaug Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,899	Originally Posted by Ziggurat What you really mean is that you can't achieve your policy goals through ordinary democratic methods because they aren't actually sufficiently popular. Yes, because the GOP now is the party which stands for "ordinary democratic methods". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
	__________________ -- August Pamplona

30th June 2022, 01:18 PM	#286
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,001	Originally Posted by Bob001 It's not widespread, but it's starting to happen. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...ption-85963071 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.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

30th June 2022, 12:16 PM	#281
wareyin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 10,873	Originally Posted by dudalb Now the SC has gutted the EPA 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!

30th June 2022, 01:22 PM	#287
shuttlt Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 10,094	Originally Posted by Ziggurat 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 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.

30th June 2022, 01:22 PM	#288
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,001	Originally Posted by cosmicaug Yes, because the GOP now is the party which stands for "ordinary democratic methods". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 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.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

30th June 2022, 01:25 PM	#289
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,001	Originally Posted by shuttlt I don't know. There doesn't look like any possibility of anybody having the support to resolve this by changing the constitution. 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.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

30th June 2022, 01:41 PM	#290
shuttlt Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 10,094	Originally Posted by Ziggurat 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.

30th June 2022, 02:02 PM	#291
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 33,430	Originally Posted by Ziggurat 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. Originally Posted by Upchurch 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. 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?
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

30th June 2022, 02:08 PM	#292
shuttlt Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 10,094	Originally Posted by Upchurch 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.

30th June 2022, 02:19 PM	#293
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 33,430	Originally Posted by shuttlt 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.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

30th June 2022, 02:23 PM	#294
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 57,211	Originally Posted by Ziggurat 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, the GOP has pretty much abandoned Democrcy anyway...
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

30th June 2022, 02:45 PM	#295
shuttlt Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 10,094	Originally Posted by Upchurch 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. 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.

30th June 2022, 02:50 PM	#296
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 33,760	Originally Posted by Upchurch 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. 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....!
	__________________ I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver) "There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)

30th June 2022, 02:51 PM	#297
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 33,430	Originally Posted by shuttlt People were losing their jobs over the vaccine. 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.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

30th June 2022, 02:58 PM	#298
cosmicaug Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,899	Originally Posted by dudalb [/b] Well, the GOP has pretty much abandoned Democrcy anyway... He gets the point. He's only pretending not to (partly because he's perfectly fine with it).
	__________________ -- August Pamplona

30th June 2022, 03:06 PM	#299
shuttlt Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 10,094	Originally Posted by Upchurch 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. 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.

30th June 2022, 03:12 PM	#300
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 57,211	My predictions of massive violence amounting to a second civil War are not so crazy now, are they?
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

30th June 2022, 03:14 PM	#301
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 57,211	I never thought I would say this, but I would support BIden saying, vis a vis the EPA decision: "Mr Roberts has made his decision. Let him enforce it".
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

30th June 2022, 05:03 PM	#302
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 33,430	Originally Posted by shuttlt 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. What predictions? States with anti-abortion laws are already forcing people to use their bodies to save “individuals”, as Zig puts it, who aren’t even legally people.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

30th June 2022, 05:14 PM	#303
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 19,510	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Sure there is. Win elections. Great... all the democrats have to do is overcome the gerrymandering and voter suppression taking place in various red states, limit the influence of "big money" campaign donors, deal with an electoral college that seems to give more preference to cows than people, and magically keep countries like Russia from interfering in future elections. I'm sure the supreme court would be more than willing to help with some of those. Oh, wait, they already had their say, and their response was "go ahead and suppress all those minority votes and gerrymander away. We don't care." Quote: 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. At the risk of speaking for dudalb, I rather suspect he DOES believe in democracy. He just seems to have problems with elements of the American system that are currently being exhibited, which is no longer characterized as a 'full democracy' and is rapidly going down the toilet.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppins Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

30th June 2022, 05:22 PM	#304
slyjoe Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ Posts: 3,427	In related news, the SC didn't take up NY vaccine mandate order. Clarence Thomas, on an abortion-related roll, diseented: Quote: In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas expressed support Thursday for a debunked claim that all Covid vaccines are made with cells from “aborted children.” I seriously think Thomas has jumped the shark. ETA: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...abor-rcna36156
	__________________ "You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade Last edited by slyjoe; 30th June 2022 at 05:25 PM.

30th June 2022, 05:24 PM	#305
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 19,510	Originally Posted by Ziggurat 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. First of all, the fact that the a hospital (an organization that probably has decent legal experts on staff) was concerned about dispensing the morning after pill should make a rational person a bit nervous, since it indicates a law that is vague. Secondly... why should anyone trust the Attorney general? He's a Republican... a member of the party that has decided that women cannot control their own bodies. It certainly would not be out of character for them to change their opinion in the near future if the members of Y'all Quaeda raise a big-enough fuss.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppins Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

30th June 2022, 05:40 PM	#306
shuttlt Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 10,094	Originally Posted by slyjoe In related news, the SC didn't take up NY vaccine mandate order. Clarence Thomas, on an abortion-related roll, diseented: I seriously think Thomas has jumped the shark. ETA: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...abor-rcna36156 Could you explain how he is wrong? The only quote they have from him in the article is "because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children". The article goes on to explain "The fetal tissue used in these processes came from elective abortions that happened decades ago. But the cells have since replicated many times, so none of the original tissue is involved in the making of modern vaccines.". They add in a claim that the cells that are currently being used are from foetal tissue and debunk his statement based on that. Their quote from him doesn't make that claim though. They also equivocate from his statement of "developed using" to "manufactured from". This is pretty typical of the way fact checkers operate where they debunk a claim that is more specific, or otherwise altered, from the statement that they are ostensibly debunking. Does he actually make the claim they debunk anywhere?

30th June 2022, 05:42 PM	#307
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 92,991	Originally Posted by Ziggurat 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. WTF are you talking about? Have you been living under a rock for the last 25 years? The GOP is the better marketers and horrible legislators. The Democrats are terrible marketers and they can't get much passed the party of 'blocking every ******* thing whether it was originally their idea or not and whether it is good for the country or not'. Mitch McConnell has been as bad for the country as Drumpf. Perhaps you could describe this magical democracy you believe is possible when the minority is running the country.

30th June 2022, 05:45 PM	#308
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 92,991	Originally Posted by Ziggurat 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. Yeah..no. Do you mean the majority just doesn't have a big enough super-majority to get past the minority?

30th June 2022, 06:00 PM	#309
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 92,991	Originally Posted by dudalb I never thought I would say this, but I would support BIden saying, vis a vis the EPA decision: "Mr Roberts has made his decision. Let him enforce it". That's good for the EPA crap but I believe it may be working for the Alito in charge of abortions too. There is at least one prosecutor in TX balking at enforcing the abortion ban. Remember the sheriffs that wouldn't enforce mask mandates? Instead of a civil war what we might end up with are police departments selectively enforcing laws. With a disrespected SCOTUS we are closer to that kind of breakup of the country.

30th June 2022, 06:06 PM	#310
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 92,991	Originally Posted by slyjoe In related news, the SC didn't take up NY vaccine mandate order. Clarence Thomas, on an abortion-related roll, diseented: I seriously think Thomas has jumped the shark. ETA: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...abor-rcna36156 Think about it, his wife has come out publicly professing CTs. I'm not the least bit surprised to hear that he believes any number of ignorant things.

30th June 2022, 06:08 PM	#311
slyjoe Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ Posts: 3,427	Originally Posted by shuttlt Could you explain how he is wrong? The only quote they have from him in the article is "because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children". The article goes on to explain "The fetal tissue used in these processes came from elective abortions that happened decades ago. But the cells have since replicated many times, so none of the original tissue is involved in the making of modern vaccines.". They add in a claim that the cells that are currently being used are from foetal tissue and debunk his statement based on that. Their quote from him doesn't make that claim though. They also equivocate from his statement of "developed using" to "manufactured from". This is pretty typical of the way fact checkers operate where they debunk a claim that is more specific, or otherwise altered, from the statement that they are ostensibly debunking. Does he actually make the claim they debunk anywhere? I see your point. However, the plaintiffs were OK with vaccines developed in the same way; the cell lines were using in testing the mRNA vaccine, not in manufacturing it. So explain how this should qualify for a religious exemption?
	__________________ "You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade

30th June 2022, 06:09 PM	#312
cmikes Muse Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 623	Originally Posted by dudalb I never thought I would say this, but I would support BIden saying, vis a vis the EPA decision: "Mr Roberts has made his decision. Let him enforce it". Spoken like a true Stalinist. "How many battalions does the Pope have?"
cmikes Muse Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 623

30th June 2022, 06:10 PM	#313
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 28,611	Florida judge rules state's 15 week abortion ban violates the "privacy" clause of FL's constitution. He'll issue statewide injunction. DeSantis' office says it will appeal to state's conservative SC to reverse existing precedent regarding FL' right to privacy. Looks like reversing he right to privacy has become the GOP's baby.

30th June 2022, 06:55 PM	#314
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,001	Originally Posted by Segnosaur Secondly... why should anyone trust the Attorney general? Because he's the attorney general. And by making this public statement, he has committed his office to that position. He cannot prosecute people for doing what he said was OK.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

30th June 2022, 09:30 PM	#315
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 6,286	Originally Posted by slyjoe I see your point. However, the plaintiffs were OK with vaccines developed in the same way; the cell lines were using in testing the mRNA vaccine, not in manufacturing it. So explain how this should qualify for a religious exemption? Because their "sincerely held religious belief something something." Judgement in favor of the plaintiff. Case dismissed.