The SCOTUS is currently deciding if you have a constitutional right to privacy….

originally posted by: PurpleFox
a reply to: marg6043
Maybe for you, but if someone comes to my neck of the woods with this nonsense they’re getting hot metal at 3000 ft/sec.

That would make you just as guilty.
Just saying.

The controversial case Roe v. Wade in 1972 firmly established the right to privacy as fundamental, and required that any governmental infringement of that right to be justified by a compelling state interest. In Roe, the court ruled that the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy only after viability. Before viability, the mother's right to privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest.

Soo we will lose more than we even believe, this actually no limited to rights to abortion but the fundamentally right to privacy, one does not go without the other.

Soo states can ban abortion completely if is overturn

Peachy, right, hide it behind the "saving the fetuses" but is more than that.

originally posted by: marg6043
The controversial case Roe v. Wade in 1972 firmly established the right to privacy as fundamental, and required that any governmental infringement of that right to be justified by a compelling state interest. In Roe, the court ruled that the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy only after viability. Before viability, the mother's right to privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest.

Soo we will lose more than we even believe, this actually no limited to rights to abortion but the fundamentally right to privacy, one does not go without the other.

Soo states can ban abortion completely if is overturn

Peachy, right, hide it behind the "saving the fetuses" but is more than that.

State interest here means "any matter of public concern that is addressed by a government in law or policy"

An abortion operation isn't public, it is a private and confidential medical procedure that falls under HIPPA law.

The SCOTUS draft decision indicates that Roe v Wade will be overturned. The overturn sets a legal precedent. All case law that was based on Roe V Wade can now be challenged.

Also as ColdWisdom pointed out above….Roe V Wade also supported to “personal autonomy”. I hadn’t event contemplated how “personal autonomy” could be redefined by the overturn of Roe V Wade. www.law.cornell.edu...


This article explains that Roe v Wade was a “right to privacy” interpretation decision. Now that Roe V Wade has been overturned the “right to privacy” has once again been redefined. www.reuters.com...


This “small-town”article was written way back in 2019 and describes other potential legal challenges that could follow if Roe V Wade was overturned.

www.desmoinesregister.com... 1561115001/

a reply to: tanstaafl

a reply to: TzarChasm

This will be twisted and twisted without any law to offer protections.

It going to be very interesting all the great ideas that politicians will be making to use this against citizens once the protections to fundamental rights to privacy are removed, it will not be about fetuses anymore.

Is not over until the fat lady sings is will be open market.

originally posted by: Buvvy
a reply to: tanstaafl
The SCOTUS draft decision indicates that Roe v Wade will be overturned. The overturn sets a legal precedent. All case law that was based on Roe V Wade can now be challenged.

-sigh-

No, again, it will not apply to any other rights, other than the right to an abortion.

It states this explicitly in the text.

But by all means, continue to pretend otherwise in order to stoke the FUD...

I wonder how this will affect also the pushing for rights for children to have gender reassignment in the states as medical procedures that now those in favor of claim is children's rights.

It seems that this will affect that also, something that I would gladly agree with, but what else will be attacked with this ruling on Roe vs Wade.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: marg6043

Bingo. And somebody anticipating their play exposed the legislation prematurely to force their hand. I'm not opposed to conservative values but just as with vaccines and gender politics, your right to choose ends where your body and home does. That's not a decision you make on behalf of anyone else for any reason.

I 100% agree with you...

...except in the case of murder. No one has a right to murder another human (i don't support any death penalty either). The problem we have, and that is ignored widely in this discussion, is that a lot of folks (myself included) believes abortion is murdering babies. Ignoring that is antithetical to creating any kind of agreement. In fact, that its ignored is possibly the most reprehensible part of it all, as it seems that the fact that it could be a baby that is being murdered takes a back seat to a discussion about womens rights.

Since no one in Biden Admin can define what a woman is....then abortions are no longer needed.

a reply to: Buvvy

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's fair and I respect your position. But you can't ignore the reality that illegalizing abortion won't stop abortions from happening. How did that work out for the prohibition, or drug enforcement, or gun control? Realistically the only benefit to this legislation (assuming it passes) will be the correctional industry reaping a profit from dozens if not hundreds of abortion operations, and snooty busybody neighbors collecting a reward for doing their civic duty and narcing on poverty stricken self loathing women who are already going through hell. And where does your moral victory fit into that picture?

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Buvvy

Two reasons for this leak:

1. Batch 3 of the 90,000 sealed Pfizer docs leaked in the early hours of this morning. This serves as an orchestrated distraction. Sauce.

2. To have a justifiable means of instituting vaccine mandates since my body my choice is null without Roe v Wade.

Yep this is likely.
Civil war is the goal.
If it becomes a states rights issue then we could see on one side, states that want to kill you with injections and kill your babies with abortion vs the other side, states that don’t want to make you kill yourself with injections or kill your babies.

People will then high tail it to their preferred state. And then arm up.

a reply to: Buvvy

I thought the 4th Amendment covered this centuries ago.

Eh, I guess I'm just old fashioned.🤷🏾‍♂️

a reply to: TzarChasm

Treat it as murder and see what happens.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: TzarChasm

Treat it as murder and see what happens.

Same sh!t that happens in America every year for the past century. Nothing changes except your conscience.

a reply to: TzarChasm

We illegalize murder too and it's not stopped, but I don't see anyone arguing that we should overturn murder laws because it infringes on anyone's rights. Of course, that could be because the two people involved are often two autonomous and clearly separate individuals.

I also find it interesting that there are plenty of European countries where abortion is more restrictive than the US too, but no one ever talks about that. Even in several European countries, they recognize that a baby is at least viable beyond a certain age, and abortion beyond certain very rare instances is wrong at that point.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

..except in the case of murder. No one has a right to murder another human (i don't support any death penalty either). The problem we have, and that is ignored widely in this discussion, is that a lot of folks (myself included) believes abortion is murdering babies.

Should a Texas woman that has an abortion in Mexico be tried for murder when she returns to Texas. If so what is a reasonable punishment if convicted.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TzarChasm

We illegalize murder too and it's not stopped, but I don't see anyone arguing that we should overturn murder laws because it infringes on anyone's rights. Of course, that could be because the two people involved are often two autonomous and clearly separate individuals.

I also find it interesting that there are plenty of European countries where abortion is more restrictive than the US too, but no one ever talks about that. Even in several European countries, they recognize that a baby is at least viable beyond a certain age, and abortion beyond certain very rare instances is wrong at that point.

Nobody is changing their mind today. Nice try but it's not happening. Every topic that was uploaded today around this subject matter made zero difference and guess what's going to happen in 6 months? Same thing that happened today. Same people in the same chairs, typing the same arguments and insults. I don't expect salvation, I only expect to keep surviving.

Make no mistake, Republicans are coming after every single American. With this ruling on "privacy". They're just getting to the women first.

"Privacy" means whatever the Court says it means.

Grab your popcorn. This is going to be unreal. The can of worms the SCOTUS is opening is going to be awesome.

And the irony of all this is that a woman Supreme Court Justice will be the deciding vote.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

..except in the case of murder. No one has a right to murder another human (i don't support any death penalty either). The problem we have, and that is ignored widely in this discussion, is that a lot of folks (myself included) believes abortion is murdering babies.

Should a Texas woman that has an abortion in Mexico be tried for murder when she returns to Texas. If so what is a reasonable punishment if convicted.

How would a court here prove it was her in Mexico? 🐔

During a legal abortion in a State, The right to privacy is retained by Hipaa laws 😎

Dozens of other privacy rulings are different and unique from the RvW "decision".

And, the States will still have "jurisdiction" over their own abortion laws 😎