RvW Overturned - Abortions Now Illegal

[Binger]

If you think (as you have suggested that you indeed do) that Roe was decided correctly, then you believe that the right to abortion is protected by the Constitution, the same as any right that is explicitly endorsed. If I remember correctly, the justices decided that the right to privacy is implied throughout the Constitution, and that this right to privacy suggests the right to control our own bodies.

I think the decision was sound. Others obviously disagree. I'm with you in thinking that it should have been codified into federal law--but, because it was a Supreme Court decision, most thought it pretty unlikely that it was ever going to be seriously challenged. Well, at least until the last five or six years, when folks started to worry.

This is not nuance here. I am not disagreeing with your general point. However, I think this needs some clarification.

I am not a lawyer, historian, or constitutionalist. I am, to put it mildly, the dumbest person on this forum when it comes to this stuff. I have no way of knowing if Roe was decided "correctly" or if it implied that abortion was a constitutional right versus just making it legal. Like driving a car is not a right but it is legal.

I think a woman should have the right to do as she sees fit. The constitution does not address abortion. The legislature did not make it a right or a law. Now the states can and will do what they do. I see no problem with that, given the ineptitude of the house, senate and previous administrations.

I do not think you are wrong. I am merely explaining that I am dumb and don't know if Roe was decided correctly.

[Binger]

Nothing that you say would lead me to question your commitment to the Second Amendment unless you were running for office on a platform to change the federal constitution. And, even then, I would not really care that much, depending on where you were running for office.

We don't have to change the Constitution. All it would take is a Supreme Court decision saying that the Second Amendment only applies to state militias. Or, in a quasi-originalist interpretation, that it only applies to muskets.

Well, that would be judicial activism. That is an agreed part of the process. If it happens that way, so be it. I disagree with that interpretation and that approach to the process, but I will definitely not be standing in anyone's way since I will not likely be invited to vote for anyone that could be involved in that.

[Jersey Girl]

If people want to prioritize having children, they can certainly do so while others exercise their right not to have children. It boggles my mind that those who want to have lots of children seem to think it is necessary for them to force others to do the same. Women who chose to have abortions were not infringing the rights of religious people not to have abortions. These religious people should not have the right to interfere with right of other women to terminate their own pregnancies.

Moreover, the conviction of one group that believes personhood begins at conception should not have priority over other contrary views, when the definition of personhood is as fuzzy as it clearly is.

This.

[Binger]

If people want to prioritize having children, they can certainly do so while others exercise their right not to have children. It boggles my mind that those who want to have lots of children seem to think it is necessary for them to force others to do the same. Women who chose to have abortions were not infringing the rights of religious people not to have abortions. These religious people should not have the right to interfere with right of other women to terminate their own pregnancies.

Moreover, the conviction of one group that believes personhood begins at conception should not have priority over other contrary views, when the definition of personhood is as fuzzy as it clearly is.

This.

Perfect. Let the states legislate accordingly. Let them make it a law.

[Morley]

Well, that would be judicial activism. That is an agreed part of the process. If it happens that way, so be it. I disagree with that interpretation and that approach to the process, but I will definitely not be standing in anyone's way since I will not likely be invited to vote for anyone that could be involved in that.

You’ll hear the cry of “judicial activism” from the losing side of any decision. It means nothing.

[Binger]

Well, that would be judicial activism. That is an agreed part of the process. If it happens that way, so be it. I disagree with that interpretation and that approach to the process, but I will definitely not be standing in anyone's way since I will not likely be invited to vote for anyone that could be involved in that.

You’ll hear the cry of “judicial activism” from the losing side of any decision. It means nothing.

That is certainly true for Roe and Dobbs. I don't think you are wrong.

My give a damn batteries are dead.

[Morley]

My give a damn batteries are dead.

I have the impression that they always were at a pretty low amperage.

[Vēritās]

The utter stupidity and dishonesty of the GOP position on abortion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obEJVPm_e0Y

How do people this damned stupid become elected officials?

[Gunnar]

The utter stupidity and dishonesty of the GOP position on abortion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obEJVPm_e0Y

How do people this damned stupid become elected officials?

I sometimes think some of them get elected precisely because they are so damned stupid. I think there is a certain part of the electorate that feels somehow validated if someone as stupid as or even stupider than themselves runs for office and gets elected.

[canpakes]

Isn't this one just about married couples having the right to choose to use birth control without government meddling?

Is Thomas really suggesting that we need to revisit whether a married couple can be arrested for using a condom?

That’s correct.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

Brought to you by the party of ‘limited government’, who are now paving the way towards watching what contraception you can use - if any - and possibly using period tracker data to make sure that pregnant women stay pregnant … or else.

This is one of the biggest lies to come out of this. Justice Thomas was saying that rights to contraception and same sex marriage are not mentioned in the Constitution and therefore it is not the Supreme Court's role to decide such issues. The responsibility for such decisions belongs to the states and the legislatures. It has nothing to do with whether he anyone else believes using a condom should be legal or not.

Meanwhile, three weeks later …



https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a ... x-control/