U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending 50 years of federal abortion rights

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Y'all ain't seen nothing  yet.  Wait till they rule on W.V. vs EPA ... ????

 

If they rule for WV, extremely possible, probable, then the 'alphabet' agencies will no longer be setting policy, and the Congress folks might have to show up and actually do some work.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/20-1530

 

That ruling actually will affect most citizens.  Agencies no long making up and dictating policies on people and business.  Congress will need to show up, actually work, and pass laws.

 

... Reaffirming 2nd Amendment ... a big nothing

... Freedom of expression ... another big nothing 

... Letting states decide about abortion ... strict states, simply stricter, maybe ban w/exceptions.  Less strict states, a big nothing for them, no changes, just more business.

Nonsense. Congress delegates authority to agencies to decide on all kinds of technical questions that require the contributions and expertise of lots of people. Congress simply isn't designed to get that granular. It's been settled law for close to a century at least that this is the way things get done. It does look like the Supremes could overthrow it. Major corporate polluters and manufacturers of hazardous chemicals and all round polluters if the Supremes go the way they are expected to. Once again, the Supreme Court comes down on the side of the rich and powerful.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

The justices who originally decided Roe v. Wade cited the 14th Amendment not the 9th as justification. 

Well, just as we're talking about Rights that are still Rights, whether mentioned or not............... perhaps we might accept that there may be more than one applicable Amendment............. whether specifically argued or not.

 

If it were me and I had to build a compelling argument based on an Amendment, I might choose the Fourteenth Amendment, also! Lol

 

See, while the Ninth Amendment certainly makes the case, simply and clearly. At its core, it is still primarily a philosophical statement, rather than a series of specific directives.

 

So, if you want to frame the Roe v Wade argument based on the Ninth Amendment, first you need a compelling argument that there is, in fact, a Right to Privacy; and second, that choosing to have an abortion is a PRIVATE decision, and therefore protected by that Right to Privacy.

 

You'd have to do this because the Ninth Amendment protects Rights. So you have to prove that what you're trying to protect with your decision are, indeed, "Rights."

 

The Fourteenth Amendment, on the other hand, has a lot more bones on which to hang an argument. There is a lot more meat for examining both precedents and previous errors. So it winds up being much easier to craft a deep and convincing historical argument based on the Fourteenth Amendment, than it ever would be for the Ninth. 

 

Indeed, the argument for the Ninth could almost be summed up in a single sentence...........

 

"We recognize and acknowledge these things as Rights, and the Ninth Amendment requires the government to respect, protect and preserve all the Rights of its Citizens." Period.

 

Edited June 28, 2022 by KanchanaburiGuy

[KanchanaburiGuy]

9 hours ago, scorecard said:

Also just wondering how the American Christians who are not practicing Christians would react if someone tried to have Christian beliefs enshrined as civil law, same as Shiria law in some muslim countries?

Lol

 

Well, that could turn out much, MUCH worse than most "Christians" imagine. Lol

 

That's because most Christians are woefully uninformed......... or misinformed........... about what "Christian Laws" should actually be put in place.

 

They mistakenly believe it would be limited to the "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Turn the Other Cheek"...........give, help, share, care version of "Christianity." 

 

But much of that is PAUL'S reimagining of what Jesus wanted, not actually based on what Jesus himself (supposedly) said.

 

So, what did Jesus himself say? Check out Matthew 5!

 

In Matthew 5, Jesus is quoted as saying [paraphrasing]: "All the Laws of the Prophets are still in force, and will be in force until the end of time!"

 

So, Jesus's "Christianity" doesnt just include the love and peace stuff that Paul would have us believe. It ALSO includes all the Old Testament Laws-----God's Laws as handed down through the Prophets............. "until the end of time!"

 

If you're familiar at all with the Old Testament Laws........... the "Laws of the Prophets"............ you'll know they aren't all that different from Sharia Law! They are commanding, controlling, bloody and bloodthirsty! They are brutal and unforgiving, misogynistic, homophobic, and domineering.

 

Give "false witness?"

Death!

 

Don't respect your parents?

Death!

 

Take the Lord's name in vain?

Death!

 

In Jesus's version of "Christianity"........... (and isn't that the one we're SUPPOSED to be following, not PAUL'S reinterpretation?).......... Islam would have very few complaints about how "Christians" live their lives!

 

Sadly, though, it seems very few Christians have any idea that Jesus said this!

 

But it's right there in Matthew 5............

 

But what most people have done is just listen to what their preacher has told them to think........... rather than reading for themselves what the actual passages say!

 

Do I find the love and peace, post-60s-hippie, modern version of "Christianity" appealing? Sure! Of course! Who wouldn't?

 

But thats not the version of "Christianity" that Jesus himself said was supposed to reign supreme "until the end of time?"

 

Would I want THAT ONE?

 

Nah, no thanks! No way!

 

Lol

 

Edited June 28, 2022 by KanchanaburiGuy

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Lol

 

Well, that could turn out much, MUCH worse than most "Christians" imagine. Lol

 

That's because most Christians are woefully uninformed......... or misinformed........... about what "Christian Laws" should actually be put in place.

 

They mistakenly believe it would be limited to the "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Turn the Other Cheek"...........give, help, share, care version of "Christianity." 

 

But much of that is PAUL'S reimagining of what Jesus wanted, not actually based on what Jesus himself (supposedly) said.

 

So, what did Jesus himself say? Check out Matthew 5!

 

In Matthew 5, Jesus is quoted as saying [paraphrasing]: "All the Laws of the Prophets are still in force, and will be in force until the end of time!"

 

So, Jesus's "Christianity" doesnt just include the love and peace stuff that Paul would have us believe. It ALSO includes all the Old Testament Laws-----God's Laws as handed down through the Prophets............. "until the end of time!"

 

If you're familiar at all with the Old Testament Laws........... the "Laws of the Prophets"............ you'll know they aren't all that different from Sharia Law! They are commanding, controlling, bloody and bloodthirsty! They are brutal and unforgiving, misogynistic, homophobic, and domineering.

 

Give "false witness?"

Death!

 

Don't respect your parents?

Death!

 

Take the Lord's name in vain?

Death!

 

In Jesus's version of "Christianity"........... (and isn't that the one we're SUPPOSED to be following, not PAUL'S reinterpretation?).......... Islam would have very few complaints about how "Christians" live their lives!

 

Sadly, though, it seems very few Christians have any idea that Jesus said this!

 

But it's right there in Matthew 5............

 

But what most people have done is just listen to what their preacher has told them to think........... rather than reading for themselves what the actual passages say!

 

Do I find the love and peace, post-60s-hippie, modern version of "Christianity" appealing? Sure! Of course! Who wouldn't?

 

But thats not the version of "Christianity" that Jesus himself said was supposed to reign supreme "until the end of time?"

 

Would I want THAT ONE?

 

Nah, no thanks! No way!

 

Lol

 

Thanks for your comments, very educational.

 

Seems to me there's a further important point - the point that the founding fathers pushed for full separation of religion and civil laws. Unless I'm mistaken this strongly demands that American law strictly must not be based on bible verses / religious teachings etc.

 

So how is it that we currently hear so much comment from American politicians and especially the GOP pushing for recognition of bible writings etc., in the law laws are framed/established? And it seems to be strongly present in the current actions of the supreme court to reverse the law re abortions. 

 

Surely the supreme court is the ultimate judicial entity IN the USA that should be very strongly pushing for / insisting on total absence of religion in regard to the philosophical aspects of how abortion and all other laws are framed.       

 

And how come the very large % of Americans who are not really / not seriously aligned to any religion, plus those (a big % of citizens) who when needed write Christian to complete a form but it has no real personal meaning / no meaning at all in terms of a regular or even occasional religious activity aren't being vocal to push away any/all attempts to bring religion into politics/framing of laws?

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Edited June 28, 2022 by scorecard

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Lol

 

Well, that could turn out much, MUCH worse than most "Christians" imagine. Lol

 

That's because most Christians are woefully uninformed......... or misinformed........... about what "Christian Laws" should actually be put in place.

 

They mistakenly believe it would be limited to the "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Turn the Other Cheek"...........give, help, share, care version of "Christianity." 

 

But much of that is PAUL'S reimagining of what Jesus wanted, not actually based on what Jesus himself (supposedly) said.

 

So, what did Jesus himself say? Check out Matthew 5!

 

In Matthew 5, Jesus is quoted as saying [paraphrasing]: "All the Laws of the Prophets are still in force, and will be in force until the end of time!"

 

So, Jesus's "Christianity" doesnt just include the love and peace stuff that Paul would have us believe. It ALSO includes all the Old Testament Laws-----God's Laws as handed down through the Prophets............. "until the end of time!"

 

If you're familiar at all with the Old Testament Laws........... the "Laws of the Prophets"............ you'll know they aren't all that different from Sharia Law! They are commanding, controlling, bloody and bloodthirsty! They are brutal and unforgiving, misogynistic, homophobic, and domineering.

 

Give "false witness?"

Death!

 

Don't respect your parents?

Death!

 

Take the Lord's name in vain?

Death!

 

In Jesus's version of "Christianity"........... (and isn't that the one we're SUPPOSED to be following, not PAUL'S reinterpretation?).......... Islam would have very few complaints about how "Christians" live their lives!

 

Sadly, though, it seems very few Christians have any idea that Jesus said this!

 

But it's right there in Matthew 5............

 

But what most people have done is just listen to what their preacher has told them to think........... rather than reading for themselves what the actual passages say!

 

Do I find the love and peace, post-60s-hippie, modern version of "Christianity" appealing? Sure! Of course! Who wouldn't?

 

But thats not the version of "Christianity" that Jesus himself said was supposed to reign supreme "until the end of time?"

 

Would I want THAT ONE?

 

Nah, no thanks! No way!

 

Lol

 

Having grown up in the Bible Belt, I can assure you that most Christians in the US practice Christianity a la carte. 

 

"Turn the other cheek"?  I prefer "an eye for an eye".

 

"easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God"?  Let's pretend Jesus never said that.

 

Don't lie, cheat or steal, unless it is accepted business practice (and you can get away with it).

 

The thinking is God listens but doesn't really pay attention.  So long as I talk the talk I don't have to walk the walk.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, expat_4_life said:

I don't think you have much to fear in this regard, the majority opinion specifically includes the following language ...

 

Unable to show concrete reliance on Roe and Casey themselves, the Solicitor General suggests that overruling those decisions would “threaten the Court’s precedents holding that the Due Process Clause protects other rights.” Brief for United States citing Obergefell, Lawrence,Griswold.

 

That is not correct for reasons we have already discuss As even the Casey plurality recognized, “abortion is a unique act” because it terminates “life or potential life.” Roe, abortion is “inherently different from marital intimacy,” “marriage,” or “procreation”. And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.

 

Right.  This is a one time exception, according the the Solicitor General, not the Supreme Court. 

 

And the next time precedent is overturned will also be a one time exception.  And the one after that, and the one after that...

[KanchanaburiGuy]

27 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Thanks for your comments, very educational.

 

Seems to me there's a further important point - the point that the founding fathers pushed for full separation of religion and civil laws. Unless I'm mistaken this strongly demands that American law strictly must not be based on bible verses / religious teachings etc.

 

So how is it that we currently hear so much comment from American politicians and especially the GOP pushing for recognition of bible writings etc., in the law laws are framed/established? And it seems to be strongly present in the current actions of the supreme court to reverse the law re abortions. 

 

Surely the supreme court is the ultimate judicial entity IN the USA that should be very strongly pushing for / insisting on total absence of religion in regard to the philosophical aspects of how abortion and all other laws are framed.       

 

And how come the very large % of Americans who are not really / not seriously aligned to any religion, plus those (a big % of citizens) who when needed write Christian to complete a form but it has no real personal meaning / no meaning at all in terms of a regular or even occasional religious activity aren't being vocal to push away any/all attempts to bring religion into politics/framing of laws?

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Well, you've asked a whole lot of thought-provoking questions, there. Way too much for 2 o'Clock in the morning! 555

 

So, for now, let me answer with just a couple of teasers........

 

First off, while our "Separation of Church and State" is supposed to make sure our government isn't run BY a religion or FOR a religion......... that doesn't prohibit people who have strong religious beliefs from running for and holding office. 

 

Secondly, our religious freedoms and religious tolerance, if properly realized, should never let us be prejudiced againt a good idea.......... just because it came from a religion!

 

A good idea is a good idea, regardless of where it comes from!

 

Lastly (for tonight), many times, the moral tenets taught by a religion exactly mirror the secular needs of a government or community. They are in parallel.

 

So frequently, what may look like a religiously-derived law or regulation........... was actually arrived at through purely secular means. But, as mentioned above, even if it started out as a religion-based good idea.............. that doesn't mean it cannot be incorporated into a completely secular parallel framework.

 

Ultimately, laws and government need to create a framework that suitably addresses the wants and needs of the governed. (See the Declaration of Independence for a beautifully rendered expression of this!)

 

But those laws......... and that framework........ also have to fall within the boundaries of what is quote/unquote "moral and right."

 

Historically, it was religion.........NOT government............. that kept the light shining through centuries and millennia on what is moral and right. And sometimes, admittedly, they screwed up horribly! LOL

 

But overall, religion did a very good job of keeping moral thought, practice, and tenets alive; of moving them forward when no one else was or wanted to-----through both bleak times and good.

 

Therefore, it would be a classic case of unnecessarily "reinventing the wheel"..........if someone tried to create a government based on moral values.......... as all decent governments must (!)............ and they didn't at least spend some considerable time looking at what religion has to teach us about what is "moral," and what is not!

 

If it's the United States, that means we STILL have to filter out the religion from the morals..........

 

But that doesn't mean we can't still LEARN FROM THEM, eh?

 

Okay.......... thats enough for now!

 

*YAWN!*

 

Good night........! Lol

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Well, just as we're talking about Rights that are still Rights, whether mentioned or not............... perhaps we might accept that there may be more than one applicable Amendment............. whether specifically argued or not.

 

If it were me and I had to build a compelling argument based on an Amendment, I might choose the Fourteenth Amendment, also! Lol

 

See, while the Ninth Amendment certainly makes the case, simply and clearly. At its core, it is still primarily a philosophical statement, rather than a series of specific directives.

 

So, if you want to frame the Roe v Wade argument based on the Ninth Amendment, first you need a compelling argument that there is, in fact, a Right to Privacy; and second, that choosing to have an abortion is a PRIVATE decision, and therefore protected by that Right to Privacy.

 

You'd have to do this because the Ninth Amendment protects Rights. So you have to prove that what you're trying to protect with your decision are, indeed, "Rights."

 

The Fourteenth Amendment, on the other hand, has a lot more bones on which to hang an argument. There is a lot more meat for examining both precedents and previous errors. So it winds up being much easier to craft a deep and convincing historical argument based on the Fourteenth Amendment, than it ever would be for the Ninth. 

 

Indeed, the argument for the Ninth could almost be summed up in a single sentence...........

 

"We recognize and acknowledge these things as Rights, and the Ninth Amendment requires the government to respect, protect and preserve all the Rights of its Citizens." Period.

 

I’m quite certain that you believe you and those you care about have a right to privacy.

 

[Scott]

4 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Lol

 

Well, that could turn out much, MUCH worse than most "Christians" imagine. Lol

 

That's because most Christians are woefully uninformed......... or misinformed........... about what "Christian Laws" should actually be put in place.

 

They mistakenly believe it would be limited to the "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Turn the Other Cheek"...........give, help, share, care version of "Christianity." 

 

But much of that is PAUL'S reimagining of what Jesus wanted, not actually based on what Jesus himself (supposedly) said.

 

So, what did Jesus himself say? Check out Matthew 5!

 

In Matthew 5, Jesus is quoted as saying [paraphrasing]: "All the Laws of the Prophets are still in force, and will be in force until the end of time!"

 

So, Jesus's "Christianity" doesnt just include the love and peace stuff that Paul would have us believe. It ALSO includes all the Old Testament Laws-----God's Laws as handed down through the Prophets............. "until the end of time!"

 

If you're familiar at all with the Old Testament Laws........... the "Laws of the Prophets"............ you'll know they aren't all that different from Sharia Law! They are commanding, controlling, bloody and bloodthirsty! They are brutal and unforgiving, misogynistic, homophobic, and domineering.

 

Give "false witness?"

Death!

 

Don't respect your parents?

Death!

 

Take the Lord's name in vain?

Death!

 

In Jesus's version of "Christianity"........... (and isn't that the one we're SUPPOSED to be following, not PAUL'S reinterpretation?).......... Islam would have very few complaints about how "Christians" live their lives!

 

Sadly, though, it seems very few Christians have any idea that Jesus said this!

 

But it's right there in Matthew 5............

 

But what most people have done is just listen to what their preacher has told them to think........... rather than reading for themselves what the actual passages say!

 

Do I find the love and peace, post-60s-hippie, modern version of "Christianity" appealing? Sure! Of course! Who wouldn't?

 

But thats not the version of "Christianity" that Jesus himself said was supposed to reign supreme "until the end of time?"

 

Would I want THAT ONE?

 

Nah, no thanks! No way!

 

Lol

 

You seem to forget that the gospel of Matthew was written a little under 100 years after the death of Jesus.  It's no more accurate than any of the other interpretations of the Bible.  

Since this topic is about the ban on abortion, not the intricacies of Christianity, please stay on topic.  

[Scott]

An off-topic post removed.  Continued discussion of the Bible will earn a suspension.  The thread is about abortion.   Stay on topic.  

 

[placeholder]

A Jewish congregation in Florida sooner or later is going to put the Supreme Court on the spot. They are claiming that they believe that abortion is in accordance with their religious beliefs and that Florida's prohibition interfere with their religious freedom. The Supremes have twisted Freedom of religion to keep the government from discriminating against religion to discriminating in discriminating in their favor. What this should mean is that anyone should be able to claim that they want an abortion on religious grounds. And it doesn't have to be this particular version of Judaism. Someone could even claim that in their religion practice abortion is holy and forbidding it interferes with the free exercise of their religion. To reject that claim, the justices would have to pronounce on the validity or sincerity of the plaintiffs' religious beliefs. Something that would inevitably entangle the Supremes in refereeing religions. Not really constitutionally justifiable. But I'm sure they'll find a way. Like when the conservatives claimed that a monument built in the shape of a cross was not inherently a Christian symbol.

Edited June 30, 2022 by placeholder

[Mac Mickmanus]

27 minutes ago, placeholder said:

A Jewish congregation in Florida sooner or later is going to put the Supreme Court on the spot. They are claiming that they believe that abortion is in accordance with their religious beliefs and that Florida's prohibition interfere with their religious freedom. The Supremes have twisted Freedom of religion to keep the government from discriminating against religion to discriminating in discriminating in their favor. What this should mean is that anyone should be able to claim that they want an abortion on religious grounds. And it doesn't have to be this particular version of Judaism. Someone could even claim that in their religion practice abortion is holy and forbidding it interferes with the free exercise of their religion. To reject that claim, the justices would have to pronounce on the validity or sincerity of the plaintiffs' religious beliefs. Something that would inevitably entangle the Supremes in refereeing religions. Not really constitutionally justifiable. But I'm sure they'll find a way. Like when the conservatives claimed that a monument built in the shape of a cross was not inherently a Christian symbol.

Would Religious beliefs take preference over USA laws ?

A person could claim that its his Religious beliefs  to kill all non believers and therefore mass murder should be lawful

 

[ozimoron]

16 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Would Religious beliefs take preference over USA laws ?

A person could claim that its his Religious beliefs  to kill all non believers and therefore mass murder should be lawful

 

There's no law (until now) that said abortion was illegal, in fact the law said it was illegal. Anybody who believes the reversal is anything other than a religious decision is deluding themselves.

 

While the constitution doesn't mention abortion, it does mention freedom of religion.

Edited June 30, 2022 by ozimoron

[Jingthing]

12 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Would Religious beliefs take preference over USA laws ?

A person could claim that its his Religious beliefs  to kill all non believers and therefore mass murder should be lawful

 

Sometimes.

Native Americans can legally do hallucinogens that are part of their ancient traditions.

I would like to see that Jewish group take their case to the illegitimate supreme court.

 

[Bkk Brian]

 fingers crossed for womens rights ????

 

#BREAKING Biden calls for 'exception' in Senate rules to pass abortion rights law

 

#UPDATE US President Joe Biden has called for an "exception" to the Senate filibuster rule so that Democrats can pass an abortion rights law, reversing the recent Supreme Court decision

 

Biden condemned what he called the “outrageous behavior” of the Supreme Court in deciding to overturn Roe v. Wade and said for the first time that he supported ending the filibuster to codify a woman’s right to abortion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/30/world/europe/biden-nato-jan-6.html

 

Biden said he would support changing the Senate filibuster rules, which require 60 votes to pass most legislation, to allow bringing a bill extending nationwide abortion protections to pass by simple majority, although Democrats don’t have sufficient votes in the Senate for that.

https://apnews.com/article/nato-biden-china-madrid-fe9c7fe07122413754d087e61a95a202

Edited June 30, 2022 by Bkk Brian

[heybruce]

And it begins:

 

"On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio."

"Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant."  https://www.yahoo.com/news/ohio-restricts-abortions-10-old-172452857.html

 

Of course to a hardcore right-to-life person, that fetus is a human being and the ten year old girl has to carry it to term or die trying.

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

And it begins:

 

"On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio."

"Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant."  https://www.yahoo.com/news/ohio-restricts-abortions-10-old-172452857.html

 

Of course to a hardcore right-to-life person, that fetus is a human being and the ten year old girl has to carry it to term or die trying.

It's going to be crickets on this story.

[EVENKEEL]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

And it begins:

 

"On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio."

"Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant."  https://www.yahoo.com/news/ohio-restricts-abortions-10-old-172452857.html

 

Of course to a hardcore right-to-life person, that fetus is a human being and the ten year old girl has to carry it to term or die trying.

Article says she can travel to different state. 

 

I would hope the bigger story is finding who raped this girl.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

Article says she can travel to different state. 

 

I would hope the bigger story is finding who raped this girl.

For now.  Some states are trying to make it illegal for their residents to go to another state for an abortion.  https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/19/travel-abortion-law-missouri-00018539

 

There's also the inconvenient fact that a ten year old needs help traveling to another state for an abortion.  That help may not always be available.

 

Whether they catch the monster who raped her or not, do you think she should be allowed an abortion?

[EVENKEEL]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

For now.  Some states are trying to make it illegal for their residents to go to another state for an abortion.  https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/19/travel-abortion-law-missouri-00018539

 

There's also the inconvenient fact that a ten year old needs help traveling to another state for an abortion.  That help may not always be available.

 

Whether they catch the monster who raped her or not, do you think she should be allowed an abortion?

How can you possibly track a person to another state. 

 

This is a tragic incident, track down the rapist. That's the true story.

 

Of course I believe she should have an abortion. The problem is a sensible middle ground solution should be possible. 

Edited July 2, 2022 by EVENKEEL

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

How can you possibly track a person to another state. 

 

This is a tragic incident, track down the rapist. That's the true story.

 

Of course I believe she should have an abortion. The problem is a sensible middle ground solution should be possible. 

Snitches for helpers. Could make the East German Stasi look like amateurs.

 

The American Taliban's goal is to make fetuses legally people which would instantly ban abortions nationally.

 

These radicals are bringing the US closer to civil war.

 

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/red-states-eye-restrictions-on-interstate-travel-for-abortion-services

 

Red states eye restrictions on interstate travel for abortion services

 

Conservative advocacy groups are teaming up with anti-abortion state lawmakers to draft legislation that would put an end to interstate travel for abortions , which could limit the remaining abortion options for women in states with stringent bans.

The Thomas More Society, a conservative public interest law firm, has worked with red-state lawmakers to draft model legislation regulating interstate travel for abortions that would employ the civil enforcement mechanism that propped up Texas's six-week abortion ban, the Washington Post reported . The bills would target anyone seen to be aiding and abetting interstate travel for abortion services. 

[bbko]

On 6/27/2022 at 10:01 PM, Mac Mickmanus said:

It would end up being a person, if it wasnt killed .

If you go to a supermarket and buy dinner , you aren't actually buying "dinner" , you are buying the ingredients which will become dinner shortly afterwards

Using that analogy, my sperm is an ingredient to make a baby, I guess you'd call call me a serial mass murderer since I was 14.

 

[heybruce]

On 7/2/2022 at 10:08 AM, EVENKEEL said:

How can you possibly track a person to another state. 

 

This is a tragic incident, track down the rapist. That's the true story.

 

Of course I believe she should have an abortion. The problem is a sensible middle ground solution should be possible. 

How can you track a person?  Don't you own a personal tracking device, a.k.a. a phone?

 

From the link you obviously didn't read:

 

"The first-of-its-kind proposal would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident have an abortion — from the out-of-state physician who performs the procedure to whoever helps transport a person across state lines to a clinic, a major escalation in the national conservative push to restrict access to the procedure."

 

If you give some people a profit motive to snitch on a pregnant ten year old and they will find a way to collect the information and snitch.

 

A further complication is catching the monster that raped the child.  The guardian of the child can't notify the authorities of the crime without telling them about the pregnancy.  If the pregnancy suddenly ends, an abortion is the obvious explanation.

 

BTW:  You never answered my question.  Do you think a pregnant ten year old should be allowed an abortion?

[Hanaguma]

On 7/2/2022 at 12:21 PM, heybruce said:

How can you track a person?    Don't you own a personal tracking device, a.k.a. a phone?

 

From the link you obviously didn't read:

 

"The first-of-its-kind proposal would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident have an abortion — from the out-of-state physician who performs the procedure to whoever helps transport a person across state lines to a clinic, a major escalation in the national conservative push to restrict access to the procedure."

 

If you give some people a profit motive to snitch on a pregnant ten year old and they will find a way to collect the information and snitch.

 

A further complication is catching the monster that raped the child.  The guardian of the child can't notify the authorities of the crime without telling them about the pregnancy.  If the pregnancy suddenly ends, an abortion is the obvious explanation.

 

BTW:  You never answered my question.  Do you think a pregnant ten year old should be allowed an abortion?

It is a proposal. It will fail.  If by some chance it gets past the state legislature then it will fail in appeal at the Supreme Court level. This is a non starter as an issue.  

 

BTW I think he did answer your question about the girl. He answered it the same way I would- "yes she should".  Also give her father 10 minutes alone in a room with the rapist and a ball peen hammer. 

[Jingthing]

32 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

It is a proposal. It will fail.  If by some chance it gets past the state legislature then it will fail in appeal at the Supreme Court level. This is a non starter as an issue.  

 

BTW I think he did answer your question about the girl. He answered it the same way I would- "yes she should".  Also give her father 10 minutes alone in a room with the rapist and a ball peen hammer. 

It won't fail at least in some potentially many red states. So far its constitutional based on a similar evil law in Texas. These radical right wingers are on a roll and they're out fot blood.

Edited July 2, 2022 by Jingthing

[heybruce]

29 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

It is a proposal. It will fail.  If by some chance it gets past the state legislature then it will fail in appeal at the Supreme Court level. This is a non starter as an issue.  

 

BTW I think he did answer your question about the girl. He answered it the same way I would- "yes she should".  Also give her father 10 minutes alone in a room with the rapist and a ball peen hammer. 

Correct.  There was so much to answer in his first two lines I missed the third.

 

The proposed Missouri law is modeled on the Texas bounty law, which has not been stopped.   https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/supreme-court-refuses-to-block-texas-abortion-ban-greenlights-bounty-hunting-scheme

[ozimoron]

6 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Article says she can travel to different state. 

 

I would hope the bigger story is finding who raped this girl.

The point is she must travel to another state and requires someone to take her there. Some states laws are attempting to prohibit that. Do you think it's reasonable that she is required to travel interstate to have an abortion at 10? The travel costs will be significant for her and her guardian, not to mention time off work for the guardian and who's going to look after any other siblings.

 

Who raped this girl is off topic.

 

 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

The more I see and hear in these early days after the new Roe v Wade decision, the more I'm reminded of the phrase...........

 

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

 

The Supreme Court's decision seems to have caused a lot of political leaders to believe they now have nearly "absolute power."

 

At a minimum, the change has allowed them to move closer to it. And my, aren't they jumping up to take advantage of it!

 

 

[placeholder]

On 7/2/2022 at 10:08 AM, EVENKEEL said:

How can you possibly track a person to another state. 

 

This is a tragic incident, track down the rapist. That's the true story.

 

Of course I believe she should have an abortion. The problem is a sensible middle ground solution should be possible. 

Why do you believe that a person couldn't be tracked? The year is 2022 not 1922. Why do you think detectives exist if not to track people in criminal investigations?

[Pattaya Spotter]

Source: Washington Post 

 

"Patchwork Joe" The name fits.