More Americans say Supreme Court is too conservative

[KhunLA]

3 minutes ago, Trippy said:

I agree it's only between a patient and their doctor what someone does with their body, but at what point does the baby have a right to life? 

A friend of mine had 2 babies both premies, one born a week before the 6 month mark and one a week after, both kids are now healthy normal intelligent children. if she had an abortion at 6 months isn't that murder?

That does seem to be the problem.  No true agreed consensous, when life begins.   The Constitution is there to protect all lives.

 

Murder a pregnant women, and the baby dies, you will (in many states) be charged with a double murder.

 

It's an issue for the states of the republic to decide, what is acceptable in their state, by those who live there.  

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, Trippy said:

I agree it's only between a patient and their doctor what someone does with their body, but at what point does the baby have a right to life? 

A friend of mine had 2 babies both premies, one born a week before the 6 month mark and one a week after, both kids are now healthy normal intelligent children. if she had an abortion at 6 months isn't that murder?

No. Had the mother hired a "health professional" to kill the six or seven or eight or nine-month-old "fetus", it would not be murder. 

 

But, if you had three beers and were involved in an automobile accident, which resulted in a six-weeks pregnant woman (or man) having a miscarriage, you would be a murderer. 

 

 

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you and apparently to no avail, women whose pregnancy in some ways endangers them, are encountering obstacles to getting an abortion  in states that have sharply restricted abortions because doctors don't want to run the risk of losing their licenses, being sued by freelance private citizens, and even facing jail time.

And, of course, you choose the word "child" whereas pro-choice people use the word fetus. And before you go on obout termininating pregnancies in the last 3 months, as you should well know by now, most pregnancies are terminated in the first 3 months. most pregnancies are terminated in the first 3 months. Roe v Wade specifically exempted independently viable fetuses from its ruling. In cases where late term abortions are performed it's because either the fetus isn't viable, or it has already died, or it is endangering the health of the mother. Yet these womem are finding it increasingly difficult to get abortions.

And there's this:

Abortion ban states see steep drop in OB/GYN residency applicants

States that have enacted abortion bans saw a 10.5 percent drop in applicants for obstetrics and gynecology residencies in 2023 from the previous year, according to new data from the Association of American Medical Colleges.

That decline carries a potential long-term impact on the availability of doctors to care for pregnant people and deliver babies across a large swath of the South and Midwest because medical residents often choose to stay and work where they trained.

“Everybody is saying they knew this would happen, but this is concerning,” said Atul Grover, who leads the association’s Research and Action Institute to examine the most pressing issues affecting American health care. 

https://archive.ph/E7QaH

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/04/21/abortion-ban-states-obgyn-residency-applications/

If you want to use the original meaning of "fetus", which is "offspring", then that is OK. We can say offspring.

 

I agree to add a proviso that women who are facing potential death if they continue the pregnancy can choose an abortion. Happy? Add that to rape and incest. As for the rest? They are just doing it as birth control. Women choose to become pregnant. Then they want to escape the consequences by killing their offspring.  How evil.

 

The states are free to do what they wish. That is the essence of federalism.  

[placeholder]

20 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

If you want to use the original meaning of "fetus", which is "offspring", then that is OK. We can say offspring.

 

I agree to add a proviso that women who are facing potential death if they continue the pregnancy can choose an abortion. Happy? Add that to rape and incest. As for the rest? They are just doing it as birth control. Women choose to become pregnant. Then they want to escape the consequences by killing their offspring.  How evil.

 

The states are free to do what they wish. That is the essence of federalism.  

Actually, states already have that proviso in their laws. The trouble is, in most of those states the doctors don't get final say in judging what constitutes a potential threat and what doesn't. It's the state that gets final say.

And even if your etymologyical point was correct (foetus was rarely used the way you claim it was, and only for effect), it's utterly irrelevant.

[Felton Jarvis]

On 7/20/2023 at 2:37 PM, HappyExpat57 said:

Even worse than the appearance of impropriety is the "We don't give a sh!t WHAT you think. Now go and eat some cake" attitude they all have.

The most accurate post on this subject that I have seen. Majority Catholic and majority radical right wing.

[candide]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

That does seem to be the problem.  No true agreed consensous, when life begins.   The Constitution is there to protect all lives.

 

Murder a pregnant women, and the baby dies, you will (in many states) be charged with a double murder.

 

It's an issue for the states of the republic to decide, what is acceptable in their state, by those who live there.  

Well, if it may diverge according to people's will (in your statement at the State level), why not simply at the individual level?

[Yellowtail]

3 hours ago, Felton Jarvis said:

The most accurate post on this subject that I have seen. Majority Catholic and majority radical right wing.

President Biden and Speaker Pelosi both Catholic, are they radical right wingers? 

 

 

[placnx]

On 7/20/2023 at 4:54 PM, Yellowtail said:

As always, the left never wants to argue a case on it's merit. 

 

The supreme court is supposed to interpret the constitution, not promote a leftist agenda. 

 

 

There is a limit to how far a Court can reasonably infer how the mentality of the 18th Century framers of the Constitution should determine how the Court rules today.

 

In particular, bringing back states' rights to set local rules regarding abortion flies in the face of women's rights which logically cannot be different state-to-state. The concept of an unviable fetus having personal rights is more a theological concept than a constitutional one.

 

Then again, the right to bear arms could be subject to limitation by local rules when not subsumed by the militia provision of the Constitution.

[Yellowtail]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

Actually, states already have that proviso in their laws. The trouble is, in most of those states the doctors don't get final say in judging what constitutes a potential threat and what doesn't. It's the state that gets final say.

And even if your etymologyical point was correct (foetus was rarely used the way you claim it was, and only for effect), it's utterly irrelevant.

Do you have anything that supports your claim that only the state can determine a mother's life is at risk? 

 

Is it not also irrelevant to the argument whether you call the debris resulting from an abortion is called a fetus, a baby or an unborn child? 

[placnx]

On 7/20/2023 at 6:03 PM, KhunLA said:

The justices got there by appointment & confirmation by their representatives in Congress they elected.

 

If not to your liking, blame yourself.

We should blame Obama & Co for being so lackadaisical as the Dem majorities shrank with each election after 2008.

[placnx]

On 7/20/2023 at 6:09 PM, Yellowtail said:

Roe v Wade was outrageous, which is what it was overturned.

 

The left can pass laws using congress that legalizes whatever they like.

Yes, the Dems were remiss in not codifying Rowe when they had the majority in both houses.

[Berkshire]

3 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

If you want to use the original meaning of "fetus", which is "offspring", then that is OK. We can say offspring.

 

I agree to add a proviso that women who are facing potential death if they continue the pregnancy can choose an abortion. Happy? Add that to rape and incest. As for the rest? They are just doing it as birth control. Women choose to become pregnant. Then they want to escape the consequences by killing their offspring.  How evil.

 

The states are free to do what they wish. That is the essence of federalism.  

Fortunately, most Americans do not agree with you.  They--especially women--support the right of women to decide for themselves what to do with their own bodies.  I hope this topic keeps coming up ad nauseam during election season.  Because the GOP will be annihilated for their anti-freedom of choice stance. 

[placnx]

4 hours ago, Emdog said:

I suggest removing the labeling of court as "conservative": thanks to Trump appointments, they are anything but conservative. One of the basic tenets of conservatism in minimal government interference with citizens lives, "That which governs least governs best". A conservative would take the view "it's none of the governments business whether a woman has an abortion or not. It's between her and her doctor". They also believe in precedent... Brett swore under oath at his confirmation that Roe v Wade was "settled case law". He was lying.

Republicans have been belly aching about "activist courts" for decades, but this court has been doing it's own "legislating from the bench" and we have hear nary a squeak.

Right, several justices are reactionaries. Perhaps they take precedent from the Old Testament where lying to achieve "good" ends was acceptable.

[Yellowtail]

7 minutes ago, placnx said:

Yes, the Dems were remiss in not codifying Rowe when they had the majority in both houses.

No, they were not. They know they have to have abortion as an issue. They need it to pack the court, and they need it in the election. Just like minimum wage, reparations, racism, immigration and "free" medical. 

[Yellowtail]

7 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Fortunately, most Americans do not agree with you.  They--especially women--support the right of women to decide for themselves what to do with their own bodies.  I hope this topic keeps coming up ad nauseam during election season.  Because the GOP will be annihilated for their anti-freedom of choice stance. 

Exactly, that's why the left did nothing but moan about it when they had the house, the senate and the presidency.

 

[placnx]

4 hours ago, KhunLA said:

That does seem to be the problem.  No true agreed consensous, when life begins.   The Constitution is there to protect all lives.

 

Murder a pregnant women, and the baby dies, you will (in many states) be charged with a double murder.

 

It's an issue for the states of the republic to decide, what is acceptable in their state, by those who live there.  

The Consitution is there to organize the rule of law in which the rights of individuals are protected from oppression including by the "majority". It makes no sense to have basic rights vary from state to state, since such rights are not determinable by some local majority.

[Berkshire]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Exactly, that's why the left did nothing but moan about it when they had the house, the senate and the presidency.

 

No that's not it.  The Dems never thought the Supreme Court would reverse itself in such a way.  The right to an abortion was settled law.  But now....

[placeholder]

35 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you have anything that supports your claim that only the state can determine a mother's life is at risk?

To answer your first question, of course I do.

‘A scary time’: Fear of prosecution forces doctors to choose between protecting themselves or their patients

State abortion laws are often vague about what constitutes a medical emergency, meaning doctors, hospitals, and clinics risk being second-guessed by prosecutors. “This is a scary time. If you have a state that wants to set an example, they’re looking for cases to prosecute,” said Lisa Larson-Bunnell, a health care attorney for a Missouri hospital...

In Missouri, every abortion must be reported to the state, and prosecutors can request a court order to examine records and confirm a medical emergency was present. 

https://www.statnews.com/2022/07/05/a-scary-time-fear-of-prosecution-forces-doctors-to-choose-between-protecting-themselves-or-their-patients/

 

Doctors Are Still Confused by Abortion Exceptions in Louisiana. It’s Limiting Essential Care

The existing laws in Louisiana allow for abortions in certain cases when a pregnant patient’s life or health may be at risk, but physicians have criticized the texts for being confusing and limiting their ability to provide essential medical care...

In Louisiana, abortion providers who violate the abortion-ban law face up to 15 years in prison and $5,000-$200,000 fines. Physicians have reported feeling fearful of providing pregnancy care that they would have in the past. “It’s so critical that physicians feel that they have the ability to make the judgment that is best for their patients without fear of misinterpretation and real consequences,” Avegno says.

https://time.com/6282288/louisiana-abortion-exceptions-confusion-doctors/

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by metisdead
6. After pasting a reply format the text you have pasted. An easy way to do this is to click the "Paste as plain text instead" option at the bottom of the reply box.

[KhunLA]

1 minute ago, placnx said:

The Constitution is there to organize the rule of law in which the rights of individuals are protected from oppression including by the "majority". It makes no sense to have basic rights vary from state to state, since such rights are not determinable by some local majority.

Apparently you don't understand what a 'republic' is.  

https://www.aei.org/articles/democracy-or-republic/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwwvilBhCFARIsADvYi7K6dGVQcnC8TdFqAGHpo_zRVpuDltqX4nTl2lBFG5-tucmcyUDTlQIaAsYzEALw_wcB

[Yellowtail]

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

To answer your first question, of course I do.

‘A scary time’: Fear of prosecution forces doctors to choose between protecting themselves or their patients

State abortion laws are often vague about what constitutes a medical emergency, meaning doctors, hospitals, and clinics risk being second-guessed by prosecutors. “This is a scary time. If you have a state that wants to set an example, they’re looking for cases to prosecute,” said Lisa Larson-Bunnell, a health care attorney for a Missouri hospital...

In Missouri, every abortion must be reported to the state, and prosecutors can request a court order to examine records and confirm a medical emergency was present. 

https://www.statnews.com/2022/07/05/a-scary-time-fear-of-prosecution-forces-doctors-to-choose-between-protecting-themselves-or-their-patients/

 

Doctors Are Still Confused by Abortion Exceptions in Louisiana. It’s Limiting Essential Care

The existing laws in Louisiana allow for abortions in certain cases when a pregnant patient’s life or health may be at risk, but physicians have criticized the texts for being confusing and limiting their ability to provide essential medical care...

In Louisiana, abortion providers who violate the abortion-ban law face up to 15 years in prison and $5,000-$200,000 fines. Physicians have reported feeling fearful of providing pregnancy care that they would have in the past. “It’s so critical that physicians feel that they have the ability to make the judgment that is best for their patients without fear of misinterpretation and real consequences,” Avegno says.

https://time.com/6282288/louisiana-abortion-exceptions-confusion-doctors/

 

 

 

So that's a no, you cannot support your claim that only the state can determine a mother's life is at risk. That's what I thought.

[Yellowtail]

11 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

No that's not it.  The Dems never thought the Supreme Court would reverse itself in such a way.  The right to an abortion was settled law.  But now....

They had over six months after they knew about the ruling and did nothing. 

[Yellowtail]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

Actually, states already have that proviso in their laws. The trouble is, in most of those states the doctors don't get final say in judging what constitutes a potential threat and what doesn't. It's the state that gets final say.

And even if your etymologyical point was correct (foetus was rarely used the way you claim it was, and only for effect), it's utterly irrelevant.

Is it not also irrelevant to the argument whether you call the debris resulting from an abortion is called a fetus, a baby or an unborn child? 

[placnx]

7 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Apparently you don't understand what a 'republic' is.  

https://www.aei.org/articles/democracy-or-republic/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwwvilBhCFARIsADvYi7K6dGVQcnC8TdFqAGHpo_zRVpuDltqX4nTl2lBFG5-tucmcyUDTlQIaAsYzEALw_wcB

Did you read your link? An excerpt:

"Most of the Founders agreed that the people were capable of governing themselves without the aid of a class of nobles. But they also knew that the people can screw things up. By acting intemperately or unjustly, they can trample on the rights of a minority or overlook the national interest. Indeed, the Founders experienced this on an almost daily basis in the 1780s, as the state governments legislated imprudently and even maliciously, even though, by the standards of the time, they were extremely sensitive to shifts in public opinion."

[placeholder]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

So that's a no, you cannot support your claim that only the state can determine a mother's life is at risk. That's what I thought.

Nonsense. That isn't what I said. Here it is again:

"Actually, states already have that proviso in their laws. The trouble is, in most of those states the doctors don't get final say in judging what constitutes a potential threat and what doesn't. It's the state that gets final say."

 

What do you think it means that the state gets final say? It means that in some states if a doctor gives an abortion and subsequently the state decides it wasn't justified the doctor can be convicted of a crime and sent to prison. Which is exactly what these articles say.

 

 

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Is it not also irrelevant to the argument whether you call the debris resulting from an abortion is called a fetus, a baby or an unborn child? 

Where did I claim otherwise? 

[KhunLA]

1 minute ago, placnx said:

Did you read your link? An excerpt:

"Most of the Founders agreed that the people were capable of governing themselves without the aid of a class of nobles. But they also knew that the people can screw things up. By acting intemperately or unjustly, they can trample on the rights of a minority or overlook the national interest. Indeed, the Founders experienced this on an almost daily basis in the 1780s, as the state governments legislated imprudently and even maliciously, even though, by the standards of the time, they were extremely sensitive to shifts in public opinion."

... and ?

That's why the SCOTUS justices have job for life.  They interpret and rule via the Constitution.

 

Did you read the ruling that set aside Roe vs Wade decision.   It did not ban abortions.  Simple gave that power back to 'the people' of the states.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

... and ?

That's why the SCOTUS justices have job for life.  They interpret and rule via the Constitution.

 

Did you read the ruling that set aside Roe vs Wade decision.   It did not ban abortions.  Simple gave that power back to 'the people' of the states.

You mean if the members of the Supreme Court had a single term limit of say, 10 years, they would decide differently?

[KhunLA]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You mean if the members of the Supreme Court had a single term limit of say, 10 years, they would decide differently?

Theoretically, they don't have to play politics to keep the job.  Why it is the way it is.   Once there, they can rule, as the Constitution dictates.   That's why they are vetted and there is a confirmation hearing, to make sure they and past ruling were within the Constitution.

 

All this done be elected officials, and why I always state, any problems, and it's the voters fault, since most don't pay attention, are ignorant, and or borderline stupid (I'm being kind), and you get what you vote for.

 

Who has the best commercial seems to be their deciding factor.  Along with this thinking, yet people ignore it:

 

[spidermike007]

I no longer trust the Supreme Court, at all. They seem to be bought and paid for. I am in favor of expanding the court. Dems should add another 7 justices, asap. Too few justices. Important decisions are being made by folks with absolute no wisdom. 

[RanongCat]

2 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Theoretically, they don't have to play politics to keep the job.  Why it is the way it is.   Once there, they can rule, as the Constitution dictates.   That's why they are vetted and there is a confirmation hearing, to make sure they and past ruling were within the Constitution.

 

All this done be elected officials, and why I always state, any problems, and it's the voters fault, since most don't pay attention, are ignorant, and or borderline stupid (I'm being kind), and you get what you vote for.

 

Who has the best commercial seems to be their deciding factor.  Along with this thinking, yet people ignore it:

 

Oh if only ! So many world issue that apply  to !