Is Roe v Wade just the beginning ?

[Jingthing]

7 hours ago, swissie said:

The world should fear the next "mid-term" elections in the US more than the devil fears the holy water.

Perhaps expand on that.

I do see a trend to stop helping Ukraine as much (or at all) which would happen when the republicans take more power.

Obviously with these right wing radicals in power, the US will not be a leader in climate issues.

Gun violence is a domestic issue.

[JimGant]

21 hours ago, worgeordie said:

God save America ..... maybe another civil war in the future.

Just another serendipidy for having moved to Thailand. That the papists are now in charge of the Supreme Court, now abortion abolished, next, birth control. Is America returning to those Middle Ages it cut loose in 1776? Really sad. But, no longer my problem. I spent 20 years in the US military to defend a way of life I once believed in. The last 5 years in America have made a mockery of a once proud nation.

[LaosLover]

It's a center right country, and if anything, the center has moved more to the right. That's also true in Europe.

 

My left of center side doesn't need stronger arguments, it needs more votes. And it needs them swimming against the tide of the rural/conservative biased electoral college. And I don't see where it gets them from. If anything, the anti-abortion climate will have democrats drifting away from republican areas where they might have eventually made a difference.

 

I'm down to waiting for the young to save us, but the young increased their voting share from 60.1% in 2016 to a very mere 61.7% in the life and death contest of Biden/Trump in 2020.

 

I do think the repubs will overreach and go after gay marriage. Gay people in America are among the richest and most left-leaning groups in America. So that shootout will be entertaining. Not so easy as beating up poor women in Alabama.

[cooked]

On 6/26/2022 at 7:43 PM, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

Many freedoms and rights that Americans enjoy are not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution was intentionally written and has been consistently interpreted to provide a greater degree of liberty than that.

 

The original Roe v Wade ruling is not an outlier in that it established the right to abortion as being provided by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment which establishes the right to privacy. Many other rights have been established in a similar manner under the 14th and other clauses. 

 

What is an outlier is the current Supreme Court's disregard for precedent and its personal religious and partisan political motivation for striking down Roe.

 

If the current Supreme Court can strike down Roe in this manner, there are many other rights that Americans potentially stand to lose as a result. It seems that the sole determinants in deciding whether to scrap those rights are the personal religious beliefs and partisan political motivation of some of the justices.

 

With the wife of one of the justices allegedly deeply involved in the January 6th coup attempt and others having either lied, misled or dissembled in their confirmation hearings, this court has no credibility left.

OK so abortion on demand and even "abortion" (murder) after birth as recently proposed, should be made legal across the USA by federal law. The Roe v. Wade decision contained recommendations that strictly limited such barbarous demands. Never mind. The Roe v. Wade decision was supposedly based on the constitution, 14th amendment, and I don't think that "right to privacy" has much to do with right to have an abortion. 

People object to abortion clinics that pressure women into becoming clients and also make big money selling body parts. Maybe teaching kids about birth control and making it accessible to them would help?

In any civilised society women do not have the "right" to have an abortion.

The dems had plenty of opportunity to codify Roe v. Wade, preferred to let it go and then start screaming when all this happened. I assume that morning after pills will still be available. Fentanyl certainly is.

[cooked]

On 6/26/2022 at 6:15 PM, Jingthing said:

OMG!

PAY ATTENTION.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/3535880-pence-calls-for-all-states-to-ban-abortion-after-supreme-court-ruling/

 

Pence calls for all states to ban abortion after Supreme Court ruling

 

As far as fetal personhood all that would take is the republicans taking congress and the white house or as few as one more right wing radical on the supreme court.

 

https://ballsandstrikes.org/law-politics/fetal-personhood-explainer/

 

The leaked Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization opinion is bad on its face, given the fact that Justice Samuel Alito’s writing would gleefully destroy the constitutional right to abortion. But Alito doesn’t stop there, and anti-choice activists have no intention of letting him stop there, either. Instead, these activists are already teeing up their next big legal fight: for the constitutional recognition of fetal personhood. 

I don't really care what Pence called for. After this decision, such bans would be illegal. Don't you get that?

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, cooked said:

I don't really care what Pence called for. After this decision, such bans would be illegal. Don't you get that?

No you don't get it.

The radical Christian theocrats are now working to make fetuses legally persons which would instantly ban abortion nationally and make all abortion murder.

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

37 minutes ago, cooked said:

 The Roe v. Wade decision was supposedly based on the constitution, 14th amendment, and I don't think that "right to privacy" has much to do with right to have an abortion. 

37 minutes ago, cooked said:

 Maybe teaching kids about birth control and making it accessible to them would help?

 

Griswold v. Connecticut established the right of a married couple to use birth control. This right was established via the 14th amendment and the "right to privacy" that you mention. Clarence Thomas has said that Griswold needs to be revisited, presumably with the intent to overturn.

 

If Griswold were overturned, you can forget about birth control being being taught in schools in some states as they would likely move to restrict access to it, especially for unmarried people.

 

Whatever one thinks about the morality of abortion, striking down Roe casts a shadow on many rights that Americans enjoy. Clarence Thomas should reflect on this as interracial marriage (Thomas is black, his wife white) was upheld as a constitutional right under Loving v Virginia only six years before Roe by virtue of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. 

 

 

[cooked]

20 hours ago, Jingthing said:

No you don't get it.

The radical Christian theocrats are now working to make fetuses legally persons which would instantly ban abortion nationally and make all abortion murder.

You don't have to be a radical Christian theocrat to have a sense of moral values. Calling babies just about to be born a foetus doesn't help your argument at all. 

[seedy]

"Oh yes the glory of America, how could we forget since you American people never shut up about it

Here's US history in a nutshell :

 

1)millions of pounds invested in new British colonies

 

2)France tries to invade but Britain defends its colonies at the cost of 120,000 lives in the world's first truly global war

3) ungrateful colonists refuse to contribute to the costs of this war despite the wealth of the land

 

4. US propaganda brands king George a tyrant - the King who ended slavery and spent 40% of Britain's GDP buying their freedom

5. 5) US revolts and is on the verge of losing its own revolutionary war until the French intervene

6) Britain occupied by total war with Napoleon and has its real armies on the continent

 

7) Britain cuts its losses and goes on to defeat Napoleon and restore the sovereignty of the nations of Europe

8)US claims victory and begins its life with a national attitude of arrogance

 

9) US continues slavery for another 60 years and has to have a civil war to resolve the matter

10) claims to be the greatest country in the world despite the fact that they established their nation on millions of pounds of stolen property, slave labour and genocide of the natives

11) does little to help France during 2 world wars despite France being instrumental in their revolution

12) content to let Britain and Europe suffer until Japan drags them into the war 13) goes on to completely mess up the world

order for the next 6 decades
 

14) society starts to crumble, many live in poverty and social unrest plagues the nation. Yet it still screeches hysterically about its manifest destiny

 

15) world at large getting sick of their SHEET".

[Hanaguma]

I generally go by the rule that the side using the most hysteria and hyperbole is the one that is losing. In this case, the left.  Dark pronouncements about coat hangers and back alleys that simply wont happen.   The individual states will each choose their path. That is democracy at the local level. So places like California and New York can have radical abortion policies, use tax dollars for safe havens, etc. Places like Mississippi and Nebraska can do what their citizens want. Nothing terrible about that. 

 

The reality is that most Americans do favor abortion within limits. The limit usually hits around the 12-14 week mark. Ironicallly, the same place most European countries limit abortion except for in the case of the mother health being in danger. After that point, support drops. Americans who actually favour abortion on demand until the time of birth is a tiny sliver of the country. Thankfully! Yet few Democrat politicians are willing to state their position- wonder why?

[Hanaguma]

On 6/27/2022 at 4:01 PM, JimGant said:

Just another serendipidy for having moved to Thailand. That the papists are now in charge of the Supreme Court, now abortion abolished, next, birth control. Is America returning to those Middle Ages it cut loose in 1776? Really sad. But, no longer my problem. I spent 20 years in the US military to defend a way of life I once believed in. The last 5 years in America have made a mockery of a once proud nation.

Jim, you are not paying attention. Abortion has NOT been abolished. States that allowed it last week still allow it this week. Each state can decide. Hell, California will probably have pop-up abortion clinics on the border beside the highways, the same way Nevada has casinos at all border crossings!

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Jim, you are not paying attention. Abortion has NOT been abolished. States that allowed it last week still allow it this week. Each state can decide. Hell, California will probably have pop-up abortion clinics on the border beside the highways, the same way Nevada has casinos at all border crossings!

You are 100 percent wrong. Multiple states had trigger laws in effect that were triggered or will soon trigger by Roe v Wade ending.

Also in the dry for abortion states legislatures are now working on criminalizing crossing state lines for abortion. Their trick is to make it legal for anyone to snitch on anyone that assists the women subject to stiff financial penalties. Is that freedom? More like we are now under control of an American Taliban.

[Hanaguma]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

You are 100 percent wrong. Multiple states had trigger laws in effect that were triggered or will soon trigger by Roe v Wade ending.

Also in the dry for abortion states legislatures are now working on criminalizing crossing state lines for abortion. Their trick is to make it legal for anyone to snitch on anyone that assists the women subject to stiff financial penalties. Is that freedom? More like we are now under control of an American Taliban.

Yes there are trigger laws, some restrict abortions to rape/incest/health of the birthing person, some restrict based on timing.  None AFAIK punish women for what they decide to do. A ban on travel is highly unlikely and almost certainly unconstitutional. Justice Kavanaugh said as much in his opinion on Dobbs.  Not to mention the actual mechanics of such a law are completely impossible. 

 

Sorry my friend, you are seeing demons in the shadows when this is a very simple issue. States will decide what happens within their own borders.  The debates will happen, they will be messy, and compromises will be worked out.  Politicians will be forced to actually state their positions, not just fall back on hyperbole and eupemisms like "right to choose". And that is good for everyone. 

[Jingthing]

45 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Yes there are trigger laws, some restrict abortions to rape/incest/health of the birthing person, some restrict based on timing.  None AFAIK punish women for what they decide to do. A ban on travel is highly unlikely and almost certainly unconstitutional. Justice Kavanaugh said as much in his opinion on Dobbs.  Not to mention the actual mechanics of such a law are completely impossible. 

 

Sorry my friend, you are seeing demons in the shadows when this is a very simple issue. States will decide what happens within their own borders.  The debates will happen, they will be messy, and compromises will be worked out.  Politicians will be forced to actually state their positions, not just fall back on hyperbole and eupemisms like "right to choose". And that is good for everyone. 

Totally absurd.

Good for everyone, huh?

You are willfully ignoring reality.

You are also not posting in good faith  i explained the loophole that the anti abortion radicals are working on that actually is constitutional. Rather than restrict travel they CAN do the snitch the helpers law by private citizens.

Timing? Like 6 weeks where almost no woman knows they are pregnant by.

Health of the mother? Not defined exactly what that means medically so providers will be scared off.

Also this movement's goal was never about state's rights. The goal is a total national ban and they are working on that with the effort to legally define fetuses as people.

 

https://khn.org/morning-breakout/big-step-backwards-many-world-leaders-condemn-abortion-decision/

 

 

‘Big Step Backwards’: Many World Leaders Condemn Abortion Decision

"Horrific" and "appalling" were among some of the descriptions global leaders used to describe the U.S. Supreme Court's reversal of decades of abortion rights. Combined with recent increases in gun violence, some of those also see America's ability to lead on the world stage as again backsliding.

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

How the psrtisan trump pick dominant supreme court is broken and democracy degraded.

 

 

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

How the psrtisan trump pick dominant supreme court is broken and democracy degraded.

 

 

And here I thought the judges were approved by the representative of the voters that elected them.

 

How could my POD teacher get it so wrong.

[Hanaguma]

23 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

And here I thought the judges were approved by the representative of the voters that elected them.

 

How could my POD teacher get it so wrong.

Nope. Presidents choose Supreme Court justices. Democrats pick lefty judges, Republicans pick conservative judges. Been that way forever.  The court leaned left for a long time before Trump, and will lean left again in the future. It is a long term situation.

[Hanaguma]

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Totally absurd.

Good for everyone, huh?

You are willfully ignoring reality.

You are also not posting in good faith  i explained the loophole that the anti abortion radicals are working on that actually is constitutional. Rather than restrict travel they CAN do the snitch the helpers law by private citizens.

Timing? Like 6 weeks where almost no woman knows they are pregnant by.

Health of the mother? Not defined exactly what that means medically so providers will be scared off.

Also this movement's goal was never about state's rights. The goal is a total national ban and they are working on that with the effort to legally define fetuses as people.

 

https://khn.org/morning-breakout/big-step-backwards-many-world-leaders-condemn-abortion-decision/

 

 

‘Big Step Backwards’: Many World Leaders Condemn Abortion Decision

"Horrific" and "appalling" were among some of the descriptions global leaders used to describe the U.S. Supreme Court's reversal of decades of abortion rights. Combined with recent increases in gun violence, some of those also see America's ability to lead on the world stage as again backsliding.

 

 

 

Jing;

The radicals, as you call them, are small in number and exist at both extremes. Very few Americans favor a 100% ban on abortion, an equally small number favor zero restrictions. Most fall in the middle, and most importantly EVERYONE will have a chance to be heard in November at the ballot box.  

 

There is a certain hypocrisy in so many world leaders sticking their nose in. Macron of France, for example, needs to shut up. HIS country restricts abortion far more strictly than many US states, and even more strictly than Mississipi in the Dodd case.   

 

 

[KhunLA]

31 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Nope. Presidents choose Supreme Court justices. Democrats pick lefty judges, Republicans pick conservative judges. Been that way forever.  The court leaned left for a long time before Trump, and will lean left again in the future. It is a long term situation.

President simply selects them, they are then approved, by the elected representatives of the voting public.

 

In theory ... approved by voters.  Many have not been approved and rejected by some representative.

 

That you don't know that, begs to ask, why you commented with false info.

 

" How are Supreme Court Justices selected?

The President nominates someone for a vacancy on the Court and the Senate votes to confirm the nominee, which requires a simple majority. In this way, both the Executive and Legislative Branches of the federal government have a voice in the composition of the Supreme Court."

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx#:~:text=How are Supreme Court Justices,composition of the Supreme Court.

[Hanaguma]

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

President simply selects them, they are then approved, by the elected representatives of the voting public.

 

In theory ... approved by voters.  Many have not been approved and rejected by some representative.

 

That you don't know that, begs to ask, why you commented with false info.

 

" How are Supreme Court Justices selected?

The President nominates someone for a vacancy on the Court and the Senate votes to confirm the nominee, which requires a simple majority. In this way, both the Executive and Legislative Branches of the federal government have a voice in the composition of the Supreme Court."

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx#:~:text=How are Supreme Court Justices,composition of the Supreme Court.

Yes, the President selects them. In almost all cases, his selection is approved.  Seems like a distinction without a difference to me. 

[KhunLA]

9 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Yes, the President selects them. In almost all cases, his selection is approved.  Seems like a distinction without a difference to me. 

37 didn't make the cut to fill 115 seats ... 

... you did imply almost ALL ... right ?

 

You may want to consider researching before replying:

 

"There have been 37 unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#:~:text=There have been 37 unsuccessful,of a session of Congress.

 

"How many Supreme Court justices served since 1789?

115 persons

The number of justices on the Supreme Court was changed six times before settling at the present total of nine in 1869. A total of 115 persons have served on the Supreme Court since 1789"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States_by_court_composition

[Hanaguma]

43 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

37 didn't make the cut to fill 115 seats ... 

... you did imply almost ALL ... right ?

 

You may want to consider researching before replying:

 

"There have been 37 unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#:~:text=There have been 37 unsuccessful,of a session of Congress.

 

"How many Supreme Court justices served since 1789?

115 persons

The number of justices on the Supreme Court was changed six times before settling at the present total of nine in 1869. A total of 115 persons have served on the Supreme Court since 1789"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States_by_court_composition

Three since the Reagan years, I would call "almost all". But you be you.  

[KhunLA]

6 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Three since the Reagan years, I would call "almost all". But you be you.  

Simply means they are getting smarter with their choice, knowing ELECTED folks have to approve them.

 

Might mean they didn't go with their 1st 2nd or 3rd choice, that might of leaned a bit too far left or right, and didn't and wouldn't make the cut.  Nominating someone a bit more, mainstream & obviously acceptable.

 

Simply getting nominated (or considered) doesn't get you a seat on the bench.

[seedy]

 

[Liverpool Lou]

On 6/26/2022 at 3:58 PM, OneMoreFarang said:

I am not an expert on this and I know The Guardian has a certain reputation. But is also has a reputation for interesting articles. Just read it, it's interesting.

Hardly worth reading, I'd suggest, as the very first paragraph states...

"The supreme court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which reverses the constitutional abortion rights that American women have enjoyed over the past 50 years..."

 

The US Constitution has never stated that abortion is a right, it does not even contain that word.

[seedy]

 

Praise the Lord - and pass the ammunition