Supreme Court Draft Decision Would Strike Down Roe v. Wade

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JinMI

Some Constitutional clarification could be a good thing IMO. Of course, it could also be a very bad thing if the wrong people get involved.

I really don't see that happening, at least not over this. Much easier to riot, burn a few buildings down, kill a few folks, and claim it is a "mostly peaceful" protest. Besides, a lot of people are scared to death of a Constitutional Convention.

TheRedneck

IMO the reason groups like the pro abortion supporters here FEAR (yes that right FEAR) a constitutional convention is because they KNOW their "group/cause" IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE MAJORITY..
that unlike say social media or "protests" they cant intimidate , bully, and be a "loud mouth" people into doing what they want in this format.
that truly the MAJORITY RULES and how an amendment passes.
a majority that is both HIGH and has to be done MULTIPLE TIMES (STATES) approval

the very reason they went to the supreme court (to which they should not have done this, but thats another issue) to legislate from the bench..

the way a new amendment passes is VERY SPECIFIC AND VERY HIGH APPROVAL REQUIRED..
the founding fathers were quite wise to do this to prevent mob rule and also prevent the MINORITY from telling the MAJORITY what to do.

in short they would put their view (in this case pro abortion ON DEMAND FOR ANY REASON NO RESTRICTIONS) forth and the people WOULD TELL THEM TO GO POUND SAND.

or to simplify it
if they really had the support they claim, they would not fear each state doing their own rules on this, not fear a constitutional convention and not gone to the supreme court.

scrounger

originally posted by: JBurns
My friends, this is no victory. Is it the right thing to do? Most certainly.

I fear it could cost us the midterms.

Why do people insist on using the broadest, furthest reaching mechanisms to implement their preference on this and other issues?

Meh. I am sure I will be chided for writing this, and maybe rightfully so. I can hear it now: "This is a huge win, you should be celebrating!"

I don't feel like celebrating

Heres a idea. teh rebulicans should also say they believe in Roe V wade,because it is currently the law of the land. Then say they will promise to not change it. secretly they will after they win control but better to lie and get in office first.

a D&C was common back in the 70's.

i heard about it a lot. i worked at a cambridge hospital and had nurse friends in boston hospitals and new york.

i guess it was a way to get around R v W. at least i thought so. if early enough. but you never know. family doc, teen is knocked up, schedule a D&C. they were usually done after miscarriage's.

abortion was illegal in mass but new york was fine.

Is a D&C an abortion?
A D&C (Dilation and Curretage) is the most common method of early abortion. This method is simple and considered the safest and most convenient way to end an early pregnancy. A D&C procedure is routine, considered safe and will not affect your ability to get pregnant in the future.

i guess we'll have to wait and see
if the court ruling says anything about it.

First use: Late 19th century
Gestation: 4–12 weeks

Is it weird the outrage at this is coming from the same people who hate admitting that killing a baby is murder and the other half who freak out when called Groomers?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
So for now, based on that history of never doing anything legally, I think this leak happened for the sole purpose of intimidating Justices to change their minds... which, of course, is highly illegal in itself. The DNC saw this reversal coming (as did I some time back) and decided that crooked politics was the only way to stop it.

I think you may be correct. I don't know if it's fear or confidence though. Fear they're slipping or confidence they can do this and get away with it?

Pelosi and Schumer released what I would consider an inappropriate statement. Not that she's rational on a good day, but I consider this out of bounds even for her. Their statement was conspicuously absent condemnation for this assault on our judicial integrity, but I'm sure they're very concerned about that too.

I was thinking about this when they rolled out the Ministry of Truth. You only deploy a weapon that dystopian when you're panicked, are using it as a political tool while knowing it will be ruled unconstitutional, or you're convinced you'll never lose another election again.

I thought it was a tool for the Musk Twitter deal, but it may be a toss-up between the other two. It's hard to believe the pols are scared of losing control because they're not terribly connected to reality, but maybe their handlers are. With this leak, the severity of the consequences, it makes me wonder if they don't have what the dumb pols think is a coup de grace and their handlers think is a Hail Mary. It's a bit strange that people in the dem party might view this whole series of events lately from very different ends of the spectrum.

This leak starts the unrest and court packing support. They plan to win seats. As soon as they are seated they pack the court. Our state and local prosecutors, prime candidates for judge after they're done declining to prosecute the browncoats, are already infiltrated with foreign financed activists.

Once you have a stranglehold on the judicial system it's a short trip to 1984. I don't think it even takes that much. With selective prosecution, funneling cases through a few clerks, and a compromised judge in just a few key areas you have a pretty powerful weapon. I don't think their Death Star is complete without SCOTUS though.

With a compromised judicial those in control will never lose another election except to controlled opposition. There seems to be little difference anymore. As you pointed out there are decades of easily solved problems that they've all failed to address in spite of the urgency with which they claimed it required. They're mostly all on the the same side, their own.

Our timeline is taking increasingly strange and dangerous forks.

originally posted by: JinMI
ETA: If what im reading is correct, a leak from the SCOTUS has never been done and this isnt due for a few months yet?

More games? Riots?

Presumably being leaked by a staff member hostile to the idea, in the hope of forestalling it through political agitation. Fairly standard tactic.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

The stupid part of all this, is that overturning RvW just means that the legality of abortions back to the states. This being said, all Congress has to do is sit down and make a bill that legalizes abortions, get it through the House and Senate and have Biden sign off on it.

Why don't they just go and do that? I think we all know the answer, but still the question needs to be asked.

a reply to: JinMI

The only thing holding it up is the populist opinion.

Even the most conservative poll being objective never tops 45% when asked if they would like Roe V. Wade overturned.

The average of all polls is 61% - 38%. Even Conservatives have 1/5 supporting a right to choose. And 1/10 liberals that support a total ban.

But if SCOTUS goes against the opinions of almost a supermajority of Americans then;

Meltdown, riots, more angry feminism. Sales for female razors and bras will decline. All hell breaks loose.

Statements like this will come out from The Office of the Governor.

California will not stand idly by as women across America are stripped of their rights and the progress so many have fought for gets erased. We will fight. California is proposing an amendment to enshrine the right to choose in our state constitution so that there is no doubt as to the right to abortion in this state. We know we can’t trust the Supreme Court to protect reproductive rights, so California will build a firewall around this right in our state constitution. Women will remain protected here.

And there are only a handful of states that strongly support it. California, New York, Oregon, Washington, amd a few others.

And it will be an outright ban in the states that wan't it. And it will piss many people off at a pretty high clip in those states. And it will be a reverse exalting of states rights in the bluest of places.

And I see it staying there. Places like California and Washington will become more autonomous from the USA. They will become havens and be allowed to insulate themselves via state constitution.

It would get really interesting if that was eventually overridden by federal rule. Thats where the breakup of the country starts to become a consideration.

a reply to: Brassmonkey

Why cant it be one of the likely 5 judges that likely ruled for this draft decision to leak it?

GOP LOVE CHOAS and making the government seem corrupt.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I don't think it should be a Constitutional right to kill unborn humans.

I'm glad your reply anchored the front page of this thread.

I wonder how many readers 'see' everything you said.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Rape? It's against the law for women to rape also.
I should have clarified. What law is in place in which a man cannot legally have performed by a doctor in regard to his reproductive system?

If true, I hope all you Republicans thank these Justices (and to an extent Trump, since overturning Roe v. Wade played a big part in deciding who he sent to the bench) for costing you a guaranteed victory in November. This now gives Dem candidates a hot button, domestic, issue to focus on when they really had nothing before.

Some other possible blowback, I won't be surprised if talk of packing the court starts again. Bernie's already talking about getting rid of the filibuster so a law protecting access to abortions could be passed at the federal level.

I also wouldn't be surprised if Blue states start using Texas-style laws to enforce their agendas. Not vaccinated? That's 100% fine with the state but if your neighbor finds out they can sue you for $1000. Own a gun? That's perfectly in your rights to do. Leave the house with it though and you may find yourself having to pay someone's legal fees.

a reply to: JinMI

This would put the decision back to the state.

Liberals love states rights when it's california making misgendering a hate crime, but not when it's texas wanting voter Id.

originally posted by: loam
Almost as profound as the Roe v Wade being overturned is the fact the draft decision was leaked.

I don't think the general public should ever again be surprised by decisions made in the back-rooms of gooberment.

Nancy Pelosi's, "You've gotta pass it it to see what's in it." screeeeeeeeching into my brain.

I'd love to see a law that says, "If you attempt to introduce legislation which undermines either the ethical or moral fabric of the country, that is your elected right to do so. But, the consequence of failure is your ever-lovin' mother-effin' citizenship. You fail ... GTFO ... and right the eff now!! Start swimming, Beeyotch!!

If the crap wasn't secret in the first place ... no one would ever call it a leak. Why are the people not allowed to know what decisions (that affect their lives) are being considered. There's something fundamentally wrong with all that.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

No doubt about it

GOP constantly shoots itself in the foot. Unfortunately, we also have no say on this we didnt sit in consultation with them.

Sadly we had to install fairly extreme judges considering the left has been attacking OUR RIGHTS for decades. We told you. We told you til we were blue in the face...come for our guns, our free speech our jobs and we will come for you. We tried to warn you and you didnt listen

With much arrogance, each warning was brushed off.

Still think this country should remain whole? The left has a vested interested in helping us disolve it

a reply to: Pyle

Why would they undermine themselves? They are fully unaccountable to voters and pols. They vote how they feel like.

We dont have to make the federal government SEEM corrupt. Thats a long proven concept.

a reply to: frogs453

Babies do not grow inside of us.

Unfortunately this highlights precisely why the continued dilution of womanhood only confuses people. When you talk about men being pregnant and nursing or birthing people you lose 99% who arent hard left.

The federal government should be uninvolved in this and all other matters.
Abortion should be legal in all states and regulated by the state as the Citizens of that state see fit not some unelected suits spewing opinions-to-match-policy-goals.

Roe was flawed. It was always flawed. Congress had 50 stinking years to do something ANYTHING. But dems want to play "see how far left we can get away with" and there you go. Palosi wasted her majority attacking Trump voters and getting petty revenge. Totally inept

The ends do not justify the means.

We should all have to right to abort. I have a few in mind.

I am also sorry that some of your moms didn’t get the chance to have their abortion.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

The only experts should be on Constitutional law.

The Constitution is the highest law, not the government, not lawmakers and not voters

Why did Pelosi waste her majority attacking Trump voters and figuring out more ways to abuse conservatives instead of passing a law? Congress makes laws. They had 5 decades to pass one. Blame the people we keep sending to DC that cant write law and are too extreme to garner anything resembling a plurality let alone a majority.

Split it up! (The country)

Think about it. With your own country you could legalize abortion as freely as you want. No Constitutional absolutists (like me) to worry about monkeywrenching your plans 🍻

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70
We should all have to right to abort. I have a few in mind.

I am also sorry that some of your moms didn’t get the chance to have their abortion.

Yes perhaps once or twice a year we could legalize post-birth abortions without a time limit and suspend services like police, medical...wait a minute thats a movie. The purge