RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal

[Gunnar]

...none of which you really care about, Ajax, these are just talking points to you.

Anyway, at the end of the day, this is going to hurt right-wingers as much as left, if not more, given the level of promiscuity and teenage pregnancy in rural states, not to mention right-wing men and their escorts.

And let's face it. Elite and wealthy right-wingers are not going to be deterred in the slightest from using abortion to cover up their own sexual scandals. They will almost certainly be able to use their wealth and connections to obtain abortion on demand, whether legal or not, with complete impunity.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

It is still wrong.

Did you read the article?

- Doc

I’ll take that as a “no.”

- Doc

[msnobody]

Did you read the article?

- Doc

I’ll take that as a “no.”

- Doc

Take it as a “yes.” I did read the article in its entirety.

[Some Schmo]

What happened yesterday makes it not only completely reasonable, but practically necessary to be anti-religion. This idiotic fight is due entirely to people believing religious BS. Take religion out of the picture and all this nonsense goes away.

I heard several pro-birth folks talking on TV yesterday, and every single one of them had nothing thoughtful to say on the subject. All they can do is repeat idiotic talking points. They are senseless damned robots. You can't just declare something murder so you can oppose it.

Otherwise, I can just assert that masturbation is murder. Sperm is potential life, so killing it should be illegal. I think I'll now run around the streets with idiotic signs protesting masturbation, because god something something.

Idiots.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I’ll take that as a “no.”

- Doc

Take it as a “yes.” I did read the article in its entirety.

Then what was it in the article that led you to answer with such aplomb?

- Doc

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

What happened yesterday makes it not only completely reasonable, but practically necessary to be anti-religion. This idiotic fight is due entirely to people believing religious BS. Take religion out of the picture and all this nonsense goes away.

I heard several pro-birth folks talking on TV yesterday, and every single one of them had nothing thoughtful to say on the subject. All they can do is repeat idiotic talking points. They are senseless damned robots. You can't just declare something murder so you can oppose it.

Otherwise, I can just assert that masturbation is murder. Sperm is potential life, so killing it should be illegal. I think I'll now run around the streets with idiotic signs protesting masturbation, because god something something.

Idiots.

Hence the attack on contraceptions. The Right, inevitably, arrives at the conclusion that preventing Life from attaining its god-given right to exist and to fulminate against death, decay, and the intractable march of universal thermodynamics is a sin against god itself. God is a stand-in for creation and order, whereas the devil is stand-in for death and disorder. It’s, at its fundamental core, a rebellion against their own existential crisis, and those who don’t embrace Life as an antidote to Death, is a minion of the devil, and by extension the inevitable. It creates revulsion, and I don’t know how reason can overcome emotion.

- Doc

[Dwight]

I have family and friends that are pro-life TBMs and happy with this and they don’t even consider how their own lives would be different. One had trouble conceiving and had at least one miscarriage that required a D and C. They later went on to have three kids. That is technically safe in Utah, but we can see it becomes less sure it will be available. Another has children via IVF, that is more at risk, the egg has been fertilized and we can’t have that.

The church newsroom has been updated on abortion to say:

The Church’s position on this matter remains unchanged. As states work to enact laws related to abortion, Church members may appropriately choose to participate in efforts to protect life and to preserve religious liberty.

This is how the page read as late as five days before the change was picked up on the 24th.

The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.

That would suggest members can appropriately participate in pro-life demonstrations and efforts. Though it also has a back door for the LDS exceptions of rape, incest, life of the mother, and non-viable fetus being appropriate religious liberty exceptions members should also support.

[Some Schmo]

Hence the attack on contraceptions. The Right, inevitably, arrives at the conclusion that preventing Life from attaining its god-given right to exist and to fulminate against death, decay, and the intractable march of universal thermodynamics is a sin against god itself.

Yep. The Right doesn't want doctors killing babies. That's up to mass shooters.

[Kukulkan]

I'm not the one who is being naïve here if you think they weren't intentionally trying to deceive. Hell, even Collins and Manchin said they felt like they were intentionally misled.

Joe Manchin and Susan Collins accuse Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch of misleading them about Roe v. Wade when the senators voted to confirm them

Instead, you want us to believe that it is just normal for the Supreme Court nominees to be asked in their confirmation hearings about Roe just for craps and giggles, not because anyone really expects them to indicate how they'd rule on it?

"Oh they only said it was precedent." No, that's not all they said. They said a lot, and never once did they give any indication they'd let their idiotic religious beliefs direct their decision making.

Again I don't think you understand. The whole process in the confirmation hearings is the interviewees attempting to squeeze any sort of judicial ideology from the nominee and the nominee attempting to push back on those questions and stay judicially ambiguous. Judges in general, but even more so with SC Justices are famously quiet and strict on mentioning their judicial leanings on issues that might present themselves in future cases.

For any of those judges to pronounce anything other than what they said would be incredibly taboo. They are being questioned to be seated on the highest court of the land. For them to say that current case ruling is NOT "settled law" would be the end of their career. I can totally see them at the time truly believing that Roe is the law of the land and settled for the time, yet up for review when a new case concerning it is brought before them. Whether it was liked or not, Plessy v Ferguson WAS the law of the land and "settled law" until it wasn't with Brown v Board. It was also afforded all of the "protections" of stare decisis when Brown v Board was brought before the court. For the justices to say what they said was actually the judicially neutral thing to say. They didn't express intent to overrule it, and the also didn't express that they thought it was untouchable. They expressed that it was "settled law" and was subject to stare decisis, which is the outcome for any case brought before them that has had a history in the SC.

Cute straw man. It means quite literally “let the decision stand” and I'm not saying all judges apply it in their decision making or that all decisions are permanent, but these people were very specific in mentioning it as it pertains to Roe and they did so for the sole purpose of reassuring Congress they'd not mess with it... just so they could get confirmed. They're liars, but that has become par for the course in today's GOP. They gave us a rapist as President who appointed another rapist and a couple of religious nitwits who are taking away rights hundreds of millions of American women have enjoyed for half a century.

This, coming from the party of "personal liberty."

I feel that you didn't read my post. Stare decisis is the concept of when a case is brought before you that has previous rulings, you give SPECIAL consideration to the past rulings. As stated before, most of the time this leads to upholding the previous rulings but there are occasions where that is not the case. Their assurances to Congress said nothing of not touching Roe, but rather that they would treat any case brought before them with special consideration considering Roe was law of the land at the time.

I think the myth that Roe was a bastion of good judicial review is a farce. It was controversial at the time of the ruling and remained controversial till the day it was overturned. It always had a target on its back. Many scholars on the left and right at the time predicted what happened yesterday. As I have mentioned in this thread before, Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously declared her dislike for the legal arguments and structure of the ruling. The right to an abortion that Roe afforded through the right to privacy was always thought of as a weak argument.

Criticize Republicans all that you want, and trust me they are very deserving of such criticism, but this is 50 years of work that they have accomplished. Democrats have failed to act and codify abortion legislation into the law of the land. I remember when Obama said that his top priority would be to pass such legislation. Nothing happened. Roe was ALWAYS going to be overturned. It was never a matter of if, but rather when.

[msnobody]

Take it as a “yes.” I did read the article in its entirety.

Then what was it in the article that led you to answer with such aplomb?

- Doc

Nothing in the article, just trust in God and submission to his will for our lives.