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

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Atlantis said:

Yes, the parallels to slavery have been forcibly made by those you’d consider political opponents:

 

Once upon a time it was legal to treat other human beings as if they were not human beings. They could be maltreated, and even lawfully killed. And then the (white male) Supreme Court went “nope, nothing in the constitution that lets you do that” - rightly so.

 

Fast forward to 2022, it has been legal across the entire US to treat unborn human beings as “part of the woman’s body / a clump of cells / a-human-but-not-person yada yada” and SCOTUS said “nope, nothing in the constitution let’s you do that….If you want to do that, decide on how and with what restrictions at the state level.”

Actually the Roe v. Wade ruling protected unborn human beings, defined as the fetus once it becomes viable outside the womb.  The point at which a fetus becomes viable is the earliest point at which the fetus has sufficient brain development to (maybe) be capable of consciousness and human thought; that is the point the fetus becomes human. 

 

Before that it really is just a fetus.

[ozimoron]

3 hours ago, Atlantis said:

“Kept an open mind” ? This coming from you?
 

Come on now, did he not on multiple occasions provide direct quotes from the local police force? - which was oddly ignored by those “open-minded” posters on here 100% sure the story had to be true despite then police statement…because it fit their political narrative?

 

Only the most cocooned partisan living under a rock would not realise that  the sensationalist US (and other) news media does not have a track record of jumping the gun, and then quietly “updating” their reporting when rumbled.

 

Poor girl. Good thing she can still get an abortion in the US.

 

It’s a shame the perpetrator won’t also be charged with manslaughter if/when the innocent unborn’s life is terminated.

Nobody ever said that the  story was "100% true", What they said was that nobody had evidence that it wasn't true despite plenty here all suggesting that it wasn't and not one has had the cohones to step up and admit they jumped the gun. The party line came before common sense which seems to be more and more the case since Trump normalized crazy and appointed sycophants nominated by an extremist religious dark money lobby group aka the Federalist Society to SCOTUS.

 

The guy that raped her did not kill the fetus, how y'all gonna charge him with that? It was her decision to get an abortion. Of course she was counselled but still her body and her decision, even at 10 nobody could force an abortion on her. It's likely that had she carried the child to term that she would have lifelong issues but that's between her and her doctor.

Edited July 14, 2022 by ozimoron

[ozimoron]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I said before that Biden should not have highlighted that case before it was more robustly verified. The reason for that was that if it turned out to be false the right wing would focus on that instead of the important part, the horrible new laws. If you think that's deserving of eating crow, so be it. I don’t.

What I'm saying is that the case was 100% verified and Biden knew it to be because he has the resources to know. There was never any doubt except among the bobble heads that the story was anything but true. Biden would not have made a noob error like that,

Edited July 14, 2022 by ozimoron

[KanchanaburiGuy]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Actually, you're misstating the case. Neither the orginal Roe v. Wade nor the Dobbs case refers to any right specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

What IS "specifically stated" is the Ninth Amendment, which affirms that Rights exist that have not been "specifically stated," but still deserve the recognition and protection of the United States Government.

 

It constantly amazes me that people think they know enough about the Constitution to declare "It doesn't say that in the Constitution"............ (or variations thereof)......... and then prove they don't know it at all.......... by ignoring the Ninth Amendment, which makes that whole argument moot!

 

The Constitution is not........... and was never meant to be........ a document that itemizes ALL the Rights possessed by the governed. Its object......... particularly with the Bill of Rights.......... was merely to highlight a few that the Founding Fathers believed deserved particular focus and attention.

 

The Ninth Amendment exists to make sure our Government respects ALL Rights......... and not just  those few that were selected to appear in the Constitution.

 

Sheesh!

[Jingthing]

59 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

What I'm saying is that the case was 100% verified and Biden knew it to be because he has the resources to know. There was never any doubt except among the bobble heads that the story was anything but true. Biden would not have made a noob error like that,

If you say so. 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

4 hours ago, Atlantis said:

Once upon a time it was legal to treat other human beings as if they were not human beings. They could be maltreated, and even lawfully killed. And then the (white male) Supreme Court went “nope, nothing in the constitution that lets you do that” - rightl

Sorry, but this isn't quite right. It ignores a mindset that existed at the time; a mindset that......... in their minds......... made it all okay.

 

You see, they DIDN'T say they could "treat other human beings as if they were not human beings."

 

They believed they WEREN'T "Human Beings!"

 

They believed they were nothing but a higher form of monkey or gorilla-----one that could be taught higher levels of useful tricks! 

 

Birds could be taught to talk. Dogs could be taught to fetch and follow. Horses and oxen could be taught to pull a wagon or a plow. Cats could recognize sights and sounds and respond to them. And then there were these Useful Animals............ these upgraded Monkeys/Gorillas ......... that could do all of these things, and more!

 

For someone to "treat other human beings as if they were not human beings"............. first they have to believe they ARE Human Beings! And sorry, for many people involved in the Slave Trade........ they simply didn't!

 

To the people involved in the Slave Trade, these were nothing more than particularly useful farm animals!

 

Unquestionably, there were many people back then who believed these WERE  "Human Beings." But there were many people who did not.  (Thus, conflicts raged!)

 

And, you can't really blame people for not treating them as "Human Beings"........... when they truly didn't believe they WERE "Human Beings," can you?

 

It was an ugly time, no doubt!

[placeholder]

57 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

What IS "specifically stated" is the Ninth Amendment, which affirms that Rights exist that have not been "specifically stated," but still deserve the recognition and protection of the United States Government.

 

It constantly amazes me that people think they know enough about the Constitution to declare "It doesn't say that in the Constitution"............ (or variations thereof)......... and then prove they don't know it at all.......... by ignoring the Ninth Amendment, which makes that whole argument moot!

 

The Constitution is not........... and was never meant to be........ a document that itemizes ALL the Rights possessed by the governed. Its object......... particularly with the Bill of Rights.......... was merely to highlight a few that the Founding Fathers believed deserved particular focus and attention.

 

The Ninth Amendment exists to make sure our Government respects ALL Rights......... and not just  those few that were selected to appear in the Constitution.

 

Sheesh!

Well you would think so but actually Roe v Wade for it's legal rationale relied not on the 9th amendment but explicitly on the 14th amendment.

[Jingthing]

.My reference to slavery days was about back then we had slave states and non slave states. Now we have abortion banned states and reasonable access to abortion states. Back then we had abolitionists and the Underground railroad and also slave state authorities chasing escaped slaves in non slave states. Now we have abortion access rights activists trying to help oppressed women from the ban states and also ban state legislators trying to make accessing abortion in other states illegal, banning certain medications  etc.

We can also see the North South pattern now but not entirely.

This led to a civil war and the abortion divide may be a factor in a future civil war..

This is what I meant before when I mentioned current parallels to slavery times.

Edited July 14, 2022 by Jingthing

[KanchanaburiGuy]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

Well you would think so but actually Roe v Wade for it's legal rationale relied not on the 9th amendment but explicitly on the 14th amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment  gives specific guidance that makes it much easier to hang an argument on. 

 

The Ninth Amendment is basically a directive to protect a philosophical perspective: "There are more Rights than have been mentioned. These must be protected, too."

 

The Ninth provides all the justification the Supreme Court needed to decide Roe v Wade the way they did. And their decision could have been said in a simple declarative statement:

 

"We recognize the existence of a Right to Privacy, and the decision to have an abortion is a private decision protected under that Right."

 

That's all it probably would have taken.

 

But by arguing the point based on the Fourteenth Amendment instead, they were able to go into more detail about specific aspects of the decision, while also laying out certain applicable guidelines and limitations based on that Amendment.

 

The Ninth is really all they needed. But the Fourteenth allowed them to craft a better argument for explaining and justifying their decision.

 

--------------

 

But doesn't this just make the claim "But it doesn't say that in the Constitution!" look even more ridiculous? Refuted by not one but TWO of the Amendments? Lol!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by KanchanaburiGuy

[placeholder]

Texas Medical Association says hospitals are refusing to treat women with pregnancy complications

The non-profit organization wrote that it has received complaints alleging hospital administrators have sided against providing care to women with ectopic pregnancies for fear of running afoul of state laws.

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-abortion-law-hospitals-clinic-medication-17307401.php

 

Given that the law in Texas allows private citizens to sue pretty much anybody who in any way offers any kind of assistance to any woman seeking an abortion, their reaction is understandable.

[heybruce]

12 hours ago, placeholder said:

Texas Medical Association says hospitals are refusing to treat women with pregnancy complications

The non-profit organization wrote that it has received complaints alleging hospital administrators have sided against providing care to women with ectopic pregnancies for fear of running afoul of state laws.

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-abortion-law-hospitals-clinic-medication-17307401.php

 

Given that the law in Texas allows private citizens to sue pretty much anybody who in any way offers any kind of assistance to any woman seeking an abortion, their reaction is understandable.

Horrible for women who need an abortion for their own safety, but it plays well to the Republican base.  Which do you think is more important to the Texas politicians?

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

Horrible for women who need an abortion for their own safety, but it plays well to the Republican base.  Which do you think is more important to the Texas politicians?

It may play well to the base, but it can't be good news for the Republicans' electoral prospects.

[ozimoron]

These 5 words from the U.S. Supreme Court will live in infamy

 

Ten, 20, 30 years from now, long after Clarence Thomas’ harassing days are over, long after Brett Kavanaugh has sipped his last beer, and long after Amy Coney Barrett finally realizes that her imaginary white Jesus is never showing up to save her and her church friends from the “Tribulation,” those of us still around will be staring out at the bleak, heat-ravaged landscape, cursing the memory of John Roberts’ words. Every time a town ends up underwater, every time a power grid collapses from the heat, every time crops fail, or the heat outside becomes unlivable, and the air from the fires just burns out our lungs, we can look to those five little words for our cold comfort.

Because, after all, it was only “the crisis of the day.”

 

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/7/15/2110364/-Five-words-from-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-that-will-live-in-infamy

 

 

[ozimoron]

A doctor in Texas says that one of her miscarrying patients recently suffered gravely due to restrictions placed on medical professionals by the Lone Star State's abortion laws.

In an interview with the Associated Press, San Antonio-based Dr. Jessian Munoz revealed that a patient recently came to him while she was miscarrying and was developing what the AP describes as "a dangerous womb infection."

Even though the fetus had no chance of survival, Munoz was legally barred from trying to remove it until no heartbeat could be detected, which meant the patient had to suffer for hours while she "lost multiple liters of blood" and had to be put on a breathing machine.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/texas-abortion-law-2657689070/

[placeholder]

That shill for the Republican party, otherwise known as Samuel Alito, cited dubious precedents to show that abortion was regarded as a crime at the time of the creation of the constitution. But it turns out that Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry thought differently.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/made-by-history/2022/07/19/1792-case-reveals-that-key-founders-saw-abortion-private-matter/

[Scott]

Trolling meme removed.

 

[pegman]

can anyone explain how this can be a good thing? 

Edited July 20, 2022 by pegman

[Sir Dude]

Well, the SCOTUS basically just sent it to the states to decide for themselves... so, okay. The US is so huge, and with such a diversity of opinion that the "One glove fits all" federal law style often creates much polarization. I'm of no opinion either way and am a dude, so it's not up to me. I think it's fair enough for states to decide for themselves as they cater for their own voters. It is a very divisive topic, so the only realistic option is to let each state figure it out for themselves.

[ozimoron]

On Wednesday, The Associated Press reported that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is canceling plans to teach a seminar at George Washington University, after outrage and widespread protests from students.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/thomas-gwu/

[placeholder]

One of the unintended but likely results of the Dobbs decision  would be the reluctance of ob/gyn MDs to practice in those states that impose stringent anti-abortion laws.. Why would they want to run the risk of facing criminal prosecution and costly civil lawsuits when they can practice elsewhere? 

 

A challenge for antiabortion states: Doctors reluctant to work there

"One large health-care staffing firm, AMN Healthcare, said clients in states with abortion bans are having greater trouble filling vacancies because some prospective OB/GYN candidates won’t even consider opportunities in states with new or pending abortion bans.

Tom Florence, president of Merritt Hawkins, an AMN Healthcare company, cited 20 instances since the Supreme Court ruling where prospects specifically refused to relocate to states where reproductive rights are being targeted by lawmakers.

“To talk to approximately 20 candidates that state they would decline to practice in those restrictive states, that is certainly a trend we are seeing,” Florence said."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/08/06/abortion-maternity-health-obgyn/

[Liverpool Lou]

On 6/25/2022 at 6:51 PM, TDCNINJA said:

Is there a limit on how many times a certain poster can post in a single thread?

No, there is not.

 

Don't worry about it, you can post as many comments as you wish...it's a forum! 

[placeholder]

The Supreme Court's gift to the Democrats is a gift that keeps on giving. 

 

Ohio Issue 1 takeaways: Abortion still a winning issue for Democrats
The failure of Issue 1 in Ohio is another swing election win for Democrats supporting abortion rights in the wake of Roe v. Wade being overturned last year — and another loss for Republicans who are pushing anti-transgender talking points.

Republicans in the Ohio Legislature spent $20 million on the first statewide election to be held in August since 1926 to have voters decide a single issue: Should it be harder for citizen-led initiatives to amend the state constitution via ballot measure?

The vote was a de facto referendum on abortion, held in advance of a second ballot measure in November that will decide whether or not to establish protections for reproductive rights into the state constitution. Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine signed a law banning almost all abortions in 2019, but that measure is currently tied up in court.

https://news.yahoo.com/ohio-issue-1-special-election-takeaways-abortion-wins-anti-trans-message-loses-143306723.html