1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

They can "reverse" the effect of the decision with legislation.

Yes, as I said. Legislators have been extremely happy to leave this unaddressed by legislation... fools.

On 5/4/2022 at 12:05 AM, Jingthing said:

The point here as this a GAY topic is that Roe vs. Wade had much longer established legal precedent than marriage equality and disallowing sodomy laws.

 

Yes, Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, Obergefell v. Hodges, Loving v. Virginia all up for grabs now.

 

The minority rules. Welcome to Gilead.

 

Amazingly, cases like Plessey v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education are cited by alito as examples of the Court getting things wrong.

 

Not sure why some are upset about this leak? "Oh my, it's (the leak) unprecedented." Heck, so is the reversal of a right granted 50 years ago.

 

We think that some states, ~ 16 - 19, will still allow a woman to choose what to do with her body, but I wouldn't count on that. The Federal government can bring insurmountable pressure on states.

 

 

1 hour ago, mtls2005 said:

Amazingly, cases like Plessey v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education are cited by alito as examples of the Court getting things wrong, and then right.

correction.

 

There are others in the 98 page opinion, re: Stare Decisis, beginning on page 35 Section III.

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/05/alito-opinion-lgbtq-rights/

 

Opinion 

 Alito’s draft ruling on abortion is a warning to LGBTQ Americans

 

 

Until Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s leaked draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade was published Monday, I didn’t fully understand just how dependent my same-sex marriage is on a woman’s right to choose an abortion. Now I do. And I’m terrified.

 

On 5/3/2022 at 10:13 PM, ozimoron said:

Nope, up until the baby is born it is the mother's right to decide. Doctors aren't infallible and the mother's mental health is at issue as well. She may well only find out that the baby has a severe genetic defect or down's syndrome the day before birth. It's absolutely her right to terminate the birth at her own volition.

 

Forcing a woman to give birth against her own will is barbaric. On the religious right could imagine such a thing is justifiable.

You know what is also self-evidently barbaric: murdering an infant a day before birth and framing this sickening act as "a mother's choice".

 

On 5/4/2022 at 12:05 AM, Jingthing said:

Not the place to debate abortion minutia.

Yes, killing a child after 9 months of gestation, is "abortion minutia". On the one hand, such sanitized language when a poster begins to say something inconvenient / embarrassing.

On the other hand, no-holds-barred when angrily railing against opinions nowhere to be seen.

As to the premise of this thread: no. Not even close. At this point, I'm not sure whether you even read the leaked report, or simply got your talking points from a politically motivated editorial. Would you like to read the ruling in its entirety first? If you have already done so, state it, and we can find out what the issue is (your / mine) reading comprehension.

The full draft opinion is here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21835435-scotus-initial-draft

 

The language should be very accessible to native English speakers.

On 5/6/2022 at 5:09 PM, mtls2005 said:

Not sure why some are upset about this leak? "Oh my, it's (the leak) unprecedented." Heck, so is the reversal of a right granted 50 years ago.

??? Because pressurizing actively serving SCOTUS members outside their private homes is hardly moral, desirable, or even legal? Try that?

The draft opinion explains in detail just why this rare reversal should take place, namely that it was an flimsy ruling in the first place.
 

On 5/25/2022 at 8:24 PM, Atlantis said:

You know what is also self-evidently barbaric: murdering an infant a day before birth and framing this sickening act as "a mother's choice".

 

Yes, killing a child after 9 months of gestation, is "abortion minutia". On the one hand, such sanitized language when a poster begins to say something inconvenient / embarrassing.

On the other hand, no-holds-barred when angrily railing against opinions nowhere to be seen.

As to the premise of this thread: no. Not even close. At this point, I'm not sure whether you even read the leaked report, or simply got your talking points from a politically motivated editorial. Would you like to read the ruling in its entirety first? If you have already done so, state it, and we can find out what the issue is (your / mine) reading comprehension.

Wrong.  You might want to check your terminology:

DEFINITIONS. A fetus is defined from 8 weeks after conception until term while in the uterus. An infant is live born and younger than 365 days of age. Challenges in consistent definitions of fetal and infant death mostly stem from perception of viability, which should not change the definition of the event.

 

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/128/1/177/30361/Standard-Terminology-for-Fetal-Infant-and?autologincheck=redirected

On 6/21/2022 at 10:44 PM, Credo said:

Wrong.  You might want to check your terminology:

DEFINITIONS. A fetus is defined from 8 weeks after conception until term while in the uterus. An infant is live born and younger than 365 days of age. Challenges in consistent definitions of fetal and infant death mostly stem from perception of viability, which should not change the definition of the event.

 

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/128/1/177/30361/Standard-Terminology-for-Fetal-Infant-and?autologincheck=redirected

What a weak semantic argument given the clear context I provided: "while in the uterus".

I, like many others, totally reject attempts to lessen the barbarity of killing an unborn human child, including the use of the Latin word for 'child'
https://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/fetus

The prevalence of loaded sanitized language in modern media - "reproductive rights" instead of late-term abortions (i.e. killing a human being) is as transparent as it is pathetic.

I advise you better spend your time pushing back against  sick arguments in favor of such barbaric killing including the possible 'mental health' effects on the mother if the killing does not take place.
 

Roe vs. Wade just struck down.

The US is becoming such a backwards country.

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Roe vs. Wade just struck down.

The US is becoming such a backwards country.

No. Stop it will you. If Roe vs. Wade (a flimsy ruling as agreed by serious people across the political spectrum) had never come into being, the US would have had many many decades of legislation to provide different degrees of abortion access. Those going OTT in either way would have suffered progressively at the ballot box over the years. Instead, you have this present mess of extremes.

Whatever people, the US is still a country with free internal movement. Even in the very worst scenario, affected pregnant womb-carriers (oops sorry, I mean women), can travel to New Jersey and kill off their unwanted unborn child late into the third trimester.

6 minutes ago, Atlantis said:

No. Stop it will you. If Roe vs. Wade (a flimsy ruling as agreed by serious people across the political spectrum) had never come into being, the US would have had many many decades of legislation to provide different degrees of abortion access. Those going OTT in either way would have suffered progressively at the ballot box over the years. Instead, you have this present mess of extremes.

Whatever people, the US is still a country with free internal movement. Even in the very worst scenario, affected pregnant womb-carriers (oops sorry, I mean women), can travel to New Jersey and kill off their unwanted unborn child late into the third trimester.

Poor women won't be traveling.

This is a BARBARIC ruling.

 

Continue the Roe v. Wade discussion at update below...

 

 

 

On 5/3/2022 at 8:53 PM, BangkokReady said:

So the father and the baby, they have a say?

No they don't.  It's not a baby at that stage.. it's a bunch of cells or a fetus at the latest. 

 

Why should the father have a say?!  All he contributed was a single microscopic sperm cell.   

 

Of course a father should have a say with a baby or child once it's born...but not at the very early stages when its not oven a baby yet. 

 

 

Please take the Roe vs Wade tragedy to the other thread.

 

This thread can now be used to comment on the real threat to marriage equality from the same right wing bozos that killed Roe v Wade.

Here they come.

 

 

Clarence Thomas is such a poor excuse for a SCOTUS member with his wife being so political.  The Supreme Court needs some type of ethics board to keep its members in line.  Justice Roberts has no authority to do much at all.

An "interesting" omission in the Thomas list of new targets (threatening legal contraceptives, gay marriage, and criminalizing gay sex). Interracial marriage. Another thing not mentioned in the ancient constitution. So he's a big hypocrite on top of everything else as he's a black man married to a (insurrectionist) white woman.

 

Obergefell: 'Quite Telling' Clarence Thomas Didn't Bring up Loving V. Virginia (businessinsider.com)

Quote

 

Obergefell, the plaintiff in the SCOTUS same-sex marriage ruling, said it's 'quite telling' Clarence Thomas omitted the case that legalized interracial marriage after saying the courts should go after other right to privacy cases

 

Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff behind the Supreme Court's landmark ruling on same-sex marriage, said Friday that Justice Clarence Thomas omitted Loving v. Virginia on his list of  Supreme Court decisions to "reconsider" because it "affects him personally." 

"That affects him personally, but he doesn't care about the LGBTQ+ community," Obergefell said on MSNBC's "The Reid Out."